"...I really think its wrong to be treating someone worse than some prisoners simply because he has a disease. They could be treating him a lot better...'

Very true...

He is not being treated that way "simply because he has a disease." He is being treated that way because he is willfully being a threat to others. There is no ethical dilemma. If he will not take proper precautions to safeguard his fellow citizens then he needs to be locked up.

Alcoholism is considered a disease too. What do we do with people who insist on driving drunk? We punish them. If his conditions seem harsh well, he has only himself to blame for that. Hopefully he'll come to the conclusion that wearing a mask while out in public isn't such a hardship after all.

I agree with you also. But if murders and rapists get to watch TV or make phone calls (something I do not agree with, but that is a whole other topic), he should be too.

I do not think that house arrest would necessarily work in this (or any) situation (even Martha Stewart violated her house arrest rules). By the time the authorities were aware that he has gone for a walk in the park/playground/mall/whatever, and can locate and contain him, he could have contaminated a whole bunch of people.

His claim of being 26 and not knowing the seriousness of his illness doesn't fly with me either...

Of course we have only his word on the conditions of his confinement. But I agree criminals are given way too much in the way of prison perks. I prefer the way ol' Sheriff Joe handles these things.

They say he has another hearing later this month. It would be interesting to see what he has to say then.

What's not clear from the couple different articles I've read about this story is whether he was really given a fair shake, first by his doctor and then was he really given due process? Based on what I've read, there's a good case that he wasn't.

It's apparent that he didn't really understand what he had or how it is spread. He even said so himself. Although he's an adult, he grew up in Russia and how do we know what he understands about biology and disease? Maybe he only got through junior high--we just don't know. Plenty of Americans are clueless about disease and health issues.

Although a doctor asked him to wear a mask, was that a quick, not-so-insistent remark made by the doctor during a quick exam in some busy ER? I don't know, but I've been to plenty of doctor's visits which were hurried, directions were not necessarily clear or sounded like suggestions rather than instructions, etc. If that's the case, then I can understand how any young adult would shrug off wearing a mask in public if it didn't seem that important and would "cramp his style". Was there any language problem? Again, maybe he didn't really understand what the doctor was saying and no one really followed up to make sure he understood.

Then his due process--did he speak to anyone before being hauled off to his "cell"? I'm sure the law doesn't require it so in that sense, it was "legal," but for decency's sake, did anyone give him a final chance before locking him up? The articles I've read say that the health officials got a court order to detain him, but nowhere do I find a mention that, for example, he was hauled before a judge and asked if he would wear a mask or face detention instead. From this guy's comments now, it sounds like he would've if he had only been educated properly on his condition and the importance of taking steps to minimize the threat to others in the first place.

His detention conditions sound subpar, too. There's no good medical reason why his TV, phone, computer, etc. need to be taken away. There's also no medical reason why he can't be allowed to take showers. Even hardened criminals in solitary confinement at "supermax" prisons get to take showers and be let outside periodically. Although TB is airborne, it's not terribly contagious. Generally accepted TB isolation guidelines permit patients to leave their isolation wards temporarily if they take simple precautions like wear a mask.

It seems to me that some of the rather harsh comments here stem from ignorance about the particular characteristics of TB. A person with the flu who goes to work, rides the bus, etc. is more likely to directly or indirectly lead to the death of someone from their flu than this guy is of killing someone from his TB. Flu is highly transmissible, people die from it, and there's no cure for it either, so by the "logic" that some people seem to be using, people with the flu who don't cover their mouths when they sneeze, touch objects after touching their mouth/nose, etc. should also be locked up as menaces to society. And if you've ever willfully and knowingly done these things, then you're also a criminal and should be charged with attempted murder, right?

And getting infected with TB is not a death sentence. Heck, a third of the people on the planet right now are infected with TB and most will never develop active TB disease even if left untreated, so we're not talking about the same situation as some guy with AIDS running around injecting people with his own infected blood. I'm not saying involuntary detentions aren't necessary. I'm just saying that the analogy/disease model that some people seem to have is not really applicable.

Also, think about it--the guy has a wife and children, and they just came from Russia the year before. What kind of job did he have? Does he even have health insurance? A lot of jobs don't offer health insurance or its very expensive compared to what he makes. Or if he gets laid off or is too sick to work, then his insurance also disappears. There are a lot of "big picture" questions behind this story, too, that are important and affect all of us. It's easy to demonize this one guy and ignore the other conditions that contributed to getting him where he is.

The article says that "County health authorities obtained a court order to lock him up as a danger to the public because he failed to take precautions to avoid infecting others." Since he had a hearing, has another one scheduled, is represented by counsel, and is not alleging perjury by County officials it's pretty clear he was afforded due process.


True enough, but how many know they are infected with an untreatable strain of TB and continue to act as though they are not contagious? Fortunately very few: the article mentions 17 others in Texas. So his case is by no means unique, but it is rare.


That's really the problem though isn't it? He won't wear one. From the article:
"County health officials and Daniels' lawyer, Robert Blecher, would not discuss details of the case. But in general, England said the county would not force someone into quarantine unless the patient could not or would not follow doctor's orders.
"It's very uncommon that someone would both not want to take treatment and will willingly put others at risk," England said. "It's only those very uncommon incidents where we have to use legal authority through the courts to isolate somebody."


I'll bet that hardened criminals who have untreatable TB and who refuse to wear a mask are not let out at all. I'll admit the lack of showers has me puzzled. There is probably some medical reason since I'm sure the hospital staff are not sadists. Or even if they are, I'll bet they are as tired of the smell as he is.



So those of us who are not infected with TB, whether the drug-resistant type or not, shouldn't worry about people wantonly spreading it because it likely won't kill us? Forgive me, but that's not a very convincing argument is it?


Normal flu and untreatable TB are entirely different diseases. There are vaccines and treatments for flu. But you do make a good point. If we ever see a Bird flu pandemic and infected people are running around recklessly coughing in the faces of other citizens you may well see them get locked up.


Sorry, the only thing that put him where he is was his unwillingness to take the one basic precaution (wearing the mask)that would prevent the spread of a virulent disease. I sincerely hope his attitude has changed sufficiently so they can let him out later this month.

I wonder if, when he was diagnosed here in the U.S., anyone TOLD him he had to wear a mask in public? If the medical personnel there are as inept as the Providence chain is here on the west coast, I wouldn't find it hard to believe that they 'forgot' to tell him. If they did tell him, they should have made sure that he knew and understood why.

Still, it sounds like they're overdoing the security a bit, almost to the point of vindictiveness. He could have a small TV and a phone; they could just put them out in the parking lot when he leaves and burn them. Or is that too difficult for them to figure out?

There is a HIV-infected guy here who deliberately had unprotected sex with dozens of women, and several are now positive for the disease. The last I heard, he isn't being charged with attempted murder, or murder. What are they going to do with him? Jail him for 3 months and let him loose to continue? Probably.

Between the medical profession and the legal profession, we're pretty well screwed anyway.

Sue

If he's been combative, removal of those items is a common method of dealing with disruptive inmates. And I"ve never seen a media outlet that wouldn't lie, misquote and omit to make law enforcement look bad.

The problem with house arrest is how to enforce it. If he won't comply, a house arrest program is as good as a restraining order- neither one protects people from getting hurt, it just means that the aggressor (which he is) has been warned.

As for "nobody told me", I can forgive it until he is diagnosed. Once the doc has told him what he has, which has happened, and he has made a willful and conscious decision to NOT take measures to contain his infection, which he has, and after being reinformed makes statements to the effect that he chooses not to take those measures even though he now knows better, he can not use the "I didn't know I was loaded" excuse. He knows he can kill people with what is in him, and he does not seem to care based on the statements attributed to him. So he is making a choice to endanger others through willful negligence, thus ignoring his responsibilities to society.

If you give up your responsibilities, you give up your rights; they are two halves of the same equation.

OK, I finally found an article that fills in some details. Most news outlets are just repeating or paraphrasing the same AP report, which leaves out a lot of details.

Sounds like Daniels had ample, repeated instructions to wear a mask. He was hospitalized in the US for a while for his TB, then put in residential care. OK, so it's clear that he was instructed on at least more than one occasion that he needed to wear a mask in public and he chose not to. It was probably one of his caregivers that turned him in to the health authorities. So he was definitely uncooperative and it wasn't just a case of not really understanding things or hearing something only once and not really getting it.

Wow, he's been in there longer than I thought. I thought this was a recent thing, but he's been in there roughly eight or nine months, I reckon. OK, so this is actually a rather old, on-going story.

Well, based on this new information, he knew what he was doing and had it coming to him. That's quite clear now. However, the conditions of his confinement are still troubling. He's a patient, not a convict.

Hi Arney, I don't know the conditions of his incarceration, but I would bet he's being isolated in the hospital wing. Even in prison, they won't knowingly expose the population to active TB.

I don't know what type of TB he has, but based on his history of non-compliance, I wouldn't be surprised if it was some form of resistant TB and weather or not it's resistant, it is contagious and folks can still die from TB.

He is incarcerated as a result of his own choices, and on a personal basis, I wouldn't want him free in society. His irresponsible behavior simply presents too much of a danger to be allowed to continue.

Regards, Jim