In an effort to stop the spread of COVID-19, Kentucky judges have begun to enforce mandatory house arrest ankle monitors on potentially contageous coronavirus patients who do not self-isolate. So far, the judges have ordered two Louisville, Kentucky coronavirus patients to wear ankle monitors after breaking their specific quarantine orders. The first patient refused to stay home so that they could shop. The second two to be ankle monitored were relatives; one of them was tested positive, and both refused to stay home.
Amy Hess, Louisville's chief of public services defends ankle monitoring by stating that the house arrest approach is necessary in enforcing social distancing. She as well as other local officials agree that by monitoring activity of potential corona infected patients, they can prevent the virus from spreading and affecting the community.
This seems to be an issue between those who value their individual freedoms versus public policy. In such unpredictable times, I think enforcing house arrest is necessary. I'm not sure how necessary ankle monitoring is. It may sound excessive to some people as they're often referenced in house arrests for the more "typical" crimes than in comparison to patients. However in the unique circumstance of COVID-19, because coronavirus is so easily transmittable, and the numbers are rising in the U.S (228 confirmed cases in Kentucky), it is crucial that we strictly enforce measures to contain it. The reality is that those vulnerable to the virus are put at high risk when stubborn individuals act selfishly, especially the potentially infected individuals. I understand that shopping for necessary items may be extremely tempting for an infected individual; however, there are alternatives such as asking a trusted official to buy the items or ordering the supplies/food online.
Questions:
1. Do you Agree or Disagree with the measures enforced by Kentucky judges? Why?
2. When should we value individual freedoms over public policy?
3. Is there circumstance in which a potentially infected patient should be able to break quarantine? Explain.
Sources:
Source 1
Source 2
6 comments:
In times of crisis, all hell is broken loose and usually what happens is that the nation becomes a little more chaotic and scared so it makes sense that government policies become stricter. So I agree with what the Kentucky judges did since the lines of privacy are blurred during a crisis. Honestly, at the rate at which this is spreading, it makes sense to issue an order like this to save lives. With public health issues, it is always, and I stress, most important to follow public policy over "freedoms" since never in our lifetimes is our health so dependent on each other.
I absolutely agree with the measures enforced by the Kentucky Judges. It is absurd that people are refusing to stay home even if they have tested positive. These people are selfish and inconsiderate of the impact they may cause and deserve to be ankle-monitored. I understand that individual freedom is widely valued under U.S. laws and precedents, but we are undergoing a pandemic. The US now leads the world’s most confirmed cases, and it definitely has something to do with our public policies. If citizens cannot understand that it is their civic duty to stay home in order to contain the virus from spreading, then there must be consequences. It is not difficult for these already infected patients to stay home and have someone else go shopping for them or shop online.
I agree with the Kentucky judges as well. I think that the nation's first priority is to protect its citizens, and during the current crisis, the best way to do that is to keep people at home. If people would have just stayed home like they were asked (except for leaving for essential things) then the ankle monitors would not have needed to be issued. Not to mention, as people continue to go in public, they are negatively impacting those who are more susceptible to the virus and adding to the spread of the virus. I believe that we value public policy and the health of the country over individual freedom when that freedom of individuals is hurting others. I understand why people break quarantine to check of loved ones and go to the store for necessary food items, but I think those who are potentially infected would not want to visit their loved ones anyways and could find other ways to get resources.
I think the judges are completely justified in their ruling and I agree with the measures they have taken. It’s unfortunate that it had to go this far, but ultimately they are at fault for disobeying orders and putting others at risk. Drastic times call for drastic measures, and if one is not mature or responsible enough to realize the consequences of their actions, unfortunately measures like these must be taken. Of course, freedom is one of our core values as Americans, however if one is putting public safety at risk, then there will inevitably be consequences, even at the expense of some freedoms. We’re lucky that we live in a digital era where our loved ones are a text or call away and we can have groceries delivered to us, so I think in this case, they had no reason to leave their houses and put others at risk.
I totally agree with the implementation of ankle monitors. I think that there are too many alternatives and ways to get around problems (such as needing to go shopping) for people to be walking around if they are infected with a pandemic disease. And I understand how people feel this is a violation of their freedoms, but a person's freedoms should not encroach on others, which is what is happening if they leave the house. Leaving the house can make other people sick, removing their freedom to live a healthy life, and it also affects other people's lives (negatively), so why not stay home?? It's not that hecking difficult
Although I believe this is a little bit per say harsh, I believe that this is an effective way to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. The coronavirus can spread very fast and putting the 2 people in solitude is an effective idea. However, I do not believe this will solve their problem of preventing the spread of covid-19. The virus is extremely contagious but the chances that the 2 people did not spread it already is fairly low, proven how contagious this is. Furthermore, the state is not bordered by walls so people who have the virus can bring it to Kentucky anyways, so having those 2 people tracked with ankle monitors is a little absurd. However, if it were to be true that these 2 people are the only people that can pose a threat to Kentucky, this is a extremely effective measure that has been taken. What I find very inappropriate is how the 2 people who are somewhat confirmed refuse to stay inside and insist on going outside and shopping. The fact that they don't realize how much of a threat they pose is apalling.
Post a Comment