TB or not TB

Paul · 09-05-2005, 11:17

So how many lives should he be allowed to impact before he is forced to accept the full course of treatment?
BBC
Maybe he should be charged with ABH and given at least 6 months in light of the harm he has caused to at least 12 people so far

punky · 09-05-2005, 11:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

Maybe he should be charged with ABH and given at least 6 months in light of the harm he has caused to at least 12 people so far

Spot on what I was going to say mate. He should be forcefully given treatment if he is causing harm to others with it. Doctors are supposed to protect everyone.

bopdude · 09-05-2005, 11:27

IIRC, if you know you have aids and have sex with someone you can be charged with attemted murder or something like that, so why should this guy be any different, he at least should be done for A.B.H. as mentioned

Chimaera · 09-05-2005, 11:29

Ah - but apparently it's against his 'human rights' if the authorities try anything like that - I think I read somewhere that they can't even name him publicly!

Xaccers · 09-05-2005, 11:32

Depends if he can argue that he didn't intend to infect someone else (unlike the aids guy who deliberately infected his gf)

He'd probably have to prove that he took all reasonable procautions though, which I doubt he could.
It's a potentially fatal illness, so could he be done for the same charges as the aids guy?

Ramrod · 09-05-2005, 11:41

The Times reports that the guy is a sociopath.............I think he should be locked up..............

BBKing · 09-05-2005, 11:54

Quote:

Ah - but apparently it's against his 'human rights' if the authorities try anything like that

Not in Holland, which is more liberal than the UK and is also signed up to the same human rights legislation. It's actually nothing to do with human rights - there just isn't a law that states that you can compel someone to *finish* taking treatment for an infectious disease, which is a legal hole that needs blocking, since you can compel them to go to hospital or even force them to be detained in hospital, neither of which breaks human rights legislation. In fact, looking through the Human Rights Act 1998 again (which I presume you read before commenting above), what do I find but:

Article 5 Section 1

Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...[snipped a to d]...
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;

So the detention of someone in order to prevent spreading of infectious disease is specifically *allowed* under human rights law.

Quote:

Doctors successfully applied for an order from magistrates in 2002 which forced the man to go to hospital.

That's about as far as the law goes - it clearly needs strengthening to the degree allowed in the HRA to allow the detention of the man in hospital.

allieyoung666 · 09-05-2005, 13:20

Why didnt they just section him and then that way they could have completed his full course of meds. We did that a while ago, as this guy was really ill and refused to have any treatment even though he needed it, so we had a case meeting with his family and got the guy sectioned so the treatment was given to him.
I hate people who refuse to have any treatment even if they know it will help them or cure them, I just think this guy was an arse, even though there was people who wanted to help him!

Xaccers · 09-05-2005, 15:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by allieyoung666

Why didnt they just section him and then that way they could have completed his full course of meds. We did that a while ago, as this guy was really ill and refused to have any treatment even though he needed it, so we had a case meeting with his family and got the guy sectioned so the treatment was given to him.
I hate people who refuse to have any treatment even if they know it will help them or cure them, I just think this guy was an arse, even though there was people who wanted to help him!

It's like people who refuse to take antibiotics at all, would rather go round infecting everyone else than get it over and done with much faster.

allieyoung666 · 09-05-2005, 18:34

Some people seem to belive that they can cure them selves and then wonder why they end up in hospitial dying. Some people seem to think that superhuman!!!!! I wish I was

AndrewJ · 09-05-2005, 18:47

accidently stick the needle on a seat where he is about to sit.

allieyoung666 · 09-05-2005, 18:49

Yeah but what do you what the syrgene to be full of???

Tuftus · 09-05-2005, 19:22

Why on earth would some one actually be stupid enough to reject treatment for a disease that actually kills people???

This country, tsk.

jrhnewark · 10-05-2005, 08:19

If he does want treatment (and it's fair for us to respect human rights), put him in an isolated room on a ward for the rest of his life (or until he accepts treatment).

Xaccers · 10-05-2005, 09:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by allieyoung666

Some people seem to belive that they can cure them selves and then wonder why they end up in hospitial dying. Some people seem to think that superhuman!!!!! I wish I was

Maybe he's against anti-biotics because he thinks his body will eventually reject them?