Questioning Quarantines

Karen Shen '16, Layout Editor

Among the numerous controversies that erupted in the midst of the Ebola frenzy, inadequate protocols proved to be most problematic. The Center for Disease Control’s response lagged and the virus seemed uncontainable. At one point, many people wanted to lock up anyone with a hint of the virus in isolation. While panic ensued for some, others questioned the propriety of the mandatory confinements.

But what’s so controversial about the Ebola quarantines?

The age-old issue of individual rights versus general welfare comes into play. Countless times in history, civil liberties have been suspended or even violated during “extenuating” circumstances such as wartime. For instance, during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln revoked habeas corpus, the writ that allows prisoners of war to have a trial, permitting prisoners to be held for an undefined amount of time. As another example, the Espionage Act, established during World War I, limited any speech that interfered with the war effort, thereby infringing upon the freedom of speech.

Likewise, some government officials have imposed mandatory quarantines on people coming from Ebola-stricken nations who had contact with Ebola patients, limiting their right to move around freely. Essentially, the home-bound health workers or civilians face temporary confinement, even if they do not exhibit any symptoms.

One of the infamous showdowns was between nurse Kaci Hickox and Governor Chris Christie. Upon arrival in Newark from Sierra Leone, officials immediately placed Hickox in a tent contiguous to the Newark University Hospital. Instead of receiving a warm welcome from family after working in Sierra Leone treating Ebola patients, Hickox came home to a mandatory quarantine.

With two nurses who had already contracted Ebola in the U.S., Christie tried to address the fear of Ebola in New Jersey by establishing the harsher detainment protocol, mandating that Hickox had to be isolated for the twenty-one day incubation period. Protesting these measures, Hickox flouted the mandate and moved around freely. Luckily for her, during the twenty-one day period, she did not end up exhibiting the symptoms of Ebola.

In hindsight, Christie’s policy may have seemed overly harsh. However, the fear surrounding the potential spread of Ebola in the U.S. did warrant a more severe response such as implementing quarantines. As Sowmya Mannimala ‘17 points out, “Eliminating quarantines might frighten the public even more. Quarantines may violate the freedom of citizens, but it is better to be safe than sorry in a precarious situation like this.”

On the other hand, the forced incubation and isolation of health workers may show to be detrimental to the humanitarian and medical effort currently working to combat Ebola.

“While quarantines seem to protect the welfare of the people, in the long run they de-incentivize skilled American doctors from traveling overseas to provide vital treatment for the infected,” Shaheer Rizwan ‘17 articulates.

The best way to address the dilemma between providing public safety and preserving individual rights is to properly assess the case. In Hickox’s situation, she had not shown any symptoms or presented any real threat of spreading Ebola, so her twenty-one-day sentence to quarantine was overkill.

As Madeleine Kusel ‘16 aptly puts it, “Quarantines are appropriate when an individual reports symptoms or tests positive for Ebola symptoms after returning from areas of West Africa. However, if an individual does not demonstrate those symptoms, he or she should not have to sacrifice his or her rights—that is discriminatory.” By striking a balance between these two values, we can ensure a level of security and maintain vital rights.