To the nurse who had her "human rights violated"

www.cnn.com...

What you are you doing is nothing short of murder.

You are placing American citizen's lives, those with enough common sense not to expose themselves to freakin ebola, in jeapordy.

You're upset because you have to sit in a room for 21 days? I'm upset because you are fighting against our best protection from morons like you.

When the next doctor brings back ebola I hope no one is killed, but if it does it probably won't be someone you love. It will be an innocent person that dies, all because you threw a hissy fit because you felt violated. Violated because you had to sit on your large behind and collect a check.

I won't wish any harm to you, at least not out loud, but you are an idiot who should be charged with negligence.

a reply to: dr1234

A nurse is someone who would know exactly why there's a need for quarentine so its strange she should say such a thing.

I wonder if she was paid to say that stuff so they could yet again attack our human rights?

originally posted by: VoidHawk
a reply to: dr1234

A nurse is someone who would know exactly why there's a need for quarentine so its strange she should say such a thing.

I wonder if she was paid to say that stuff so they could yet again attack our human rights?

This was my initial thought as well. It seems to be strange how this gave the feds a way to attack the quarantine, something they wasted no time doing.

a reply to: dr1234

Agreed. I was under quarantine as a child due to Rubella and even as a kid, I understood why. I didn't want anybody else to get sick and have to go through what I was. And I was a little kid.

It's not a violation of human rights when what the individual may threaten, either voluntarily or involuntarily, risks impinging on the rights of others--particularly their right to life. And a hospital is NOT "prison". If she thinks that is prison, maybe she should go visit one or talk to some inmates sometime.

a reply to: VoidHawk

A nurse is someone who would know exactly why there's a need for quarentine so its strange she should say such a thing.

Exactly. it's why it's so ridiculous to many of us why she's having such a hussy fit. So take a relaxing break from your job for a few freaking weeks.

a reply to: dr1234

I would love to know what the people caring for her in her tent feel.

You know the ones bringing her food, watching her, making sure she's ok. I guess it's good I'm not in politics I'd send her back to Africa in a canoe!

It is a slippery slope. On the one hand of course a person's civil liberties are violated when they are basically imprisoned for something they did not willingly do, and on the other hand if you let an infected person walk the streets you will end up with more infected people. So what does this tell us? Logically speaking it tells us that there are times when it necessary to violate a person's civil liberties, even when that person did not commit a crime, to preserve something for the greater population. I say it is a slippery slope because when is it acceptable to violate these rights?

Most people understand the need for quarantine in a case like this, so does that mean that the majority of people have to agree for something like this to be acceptable? I don't think so, mainly because all the government need do is pass a law, and whatever they say goes. So who makes these calls? The government in one form or another. Okay, so knowing that they do not have to have majority support to violate a person's rights when that person did not commit a crime, what is to stop them from violating a person's rights for reasons that seem less acceptable to the majority? And that is why it is a slippery slope. So while it is necessary to quarantine a person, that is not a far cry from imprisoning political dissidents, for instance. It is the same principle, which is violating a person's right because it is deemed necessary for the preservation of the larger population. If the government believed that political ideologies that were dangerous, but not illegal, were a threat to national security in some way, then could they lock these people up simply to keep them from "infecting" the rest of the country with their ideals? Maybe that is not the best example, but I think you guys will understand my point.

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
It is a slippery slope. On the one hand of course a person's civil liberties are violated when they are basically imprisoned for something they did not willingly do, and on the other hand if you let an infected person walk the streets you will end up with more infected people. So what does this tell us? Logically speaking it tells us that there are times when it necessary to violate a person's civil liberties, even when that person did not commit a crime, to preserve something for the greater population. I say it is a slippery slope because when is it acceptable to violate these rights?

Most people understand the need for quarantine in a case like this, so does that mean that the majority of people have to agree for something like this to be acceptable? I don't think so, mainly because all the government need do is pass a law, and whatever they say goes. So who makes these calls? The government in one form or another. Okay, so knowing that they do not have to have majority support to violate a person's rights when that person did not commit a crime, what is to stop them from violating a person's rights for reasons that seem less acceptable to the majority? And that is why it is a slippery slope. So while it is necessary to quarantine a person, that is not a far cry from imprisoning political dissidents, for instance. It is the same principle, which is violating a person's right because it is deemed necessary for the preservation of the larger population. If the government believed that political ideologies that were dangerous, but not illegal, were a threat to national security in some way, then could they lock these people up simply to keep them from "infecting" the rest of the country with their ideals? Maybe that is not the best example, but I think you guys will understand my point.

Slippery slope fallacy rears it's ugly head again. In the real world we go on a case by case basis, and in this case she is being quarantined, not imprisoned.

At first I can see why she is upset as she can't even take a shower , why can't they give her a room with a tv? She has not done anything wrong and is not symptomatic at this point.

BUT when she then stated she does not understand why she has to stay in quarantine for 21 days just in case and wants to get back to her family I suddenly don't feel that sympathetic for her. If there was the slightest chance I could have Ebola I would not want to go any where near my family.

a reply to: dr1234

I'm tellin' ya.. this is all about her not wanting to go 21 days without sex.

originally posted by: ItCameFromOuterSpace
a reply to: dr1234

I'm tellin' ya.. this is all about her not wanting to go 21 days without sex.

I mean I'm all for tearing this person to shreds, figuratively, but this seems a little unfounded. Am I just missing something or do I have no sense of humor??

a reply to: dr1234

The nurse was not disagreeing with being put into isolation. Her complaint, which is justified, is abut the way she was treated in the process.

originally posted by: learnatic
a reply to: dr1234

The nurse was not disagreeing with being put into isolation. Her complaint, which is justified, is abut the way she was treated in the process.

Bull#. Reread the article, and that is not a justified complaint. Because you seem to lazy to read to the freaking second page here's a small tidbit..

"Hickox told Crowley that mandatory quarantine is "not a sound public health decision" and that public health officials -- not politicians -- should be making the policies related to Ebola and public safety."

source: the GD linked article

a reply to: dr1234

I agree with her on that too