The Instigator
h_welling
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Blade-of-Truth
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

Should we quarantine people who have been exposed to Ebola?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Blade-of-Truth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,347 times Debate No: 64952
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

h_welling

Con

I don't think we should quarantine people who have been exposed to Ebola. If they don't have any symptoms, why should we lock them up?! It is also against Individual Civil Rights to quarantine someone. How would you feel if you were locked up when you had just came home from helping someone with Ebola? Locking people up isn't going to help people with Ebola. Who wants to go over to Africa and help people with Ebola, knowing that when you come back you will be locked up in your house for weeks?

Sometimes you could be fully clothed and get Ebola. Mr. Duncan in Texas, had Ebola. He lived with other family members, walked around the house, touched things. Then he gave Ebola to two other doctors covered from head to toe. Not the family members that he lived with. So why should we quarantine people when it makes no scientific sense?
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

I want to thank my opponent for instigating this thought-provoking debate.

To start, I will provide some definitions for key terms found within the resolution, followed by my opening arguments and ending with rebuttals for the arguments raised by Con.

Definitions

Quarantine: A state, period, or place of isolation in which people or animals that have arrived from elsewhere or been exposed to infectious or contagious disease are placed. [1]

Ebola: Ebola virus disease (Ebola) is a rare and deadly viral illness. Early recognition of Ebola is critical for infection control. [2]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

[2] http://www.cdc.gov...

Argument

I. Infectious diseases with high-mortality potential justifies quarantine.

When determining the validity of something being quarantine-worthy, in this case Ebola-stricken individuals, it is important to understand the standards in place, and why that thing in question is justifiably quarantined.

A good reference would be the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC in short. On their page about laws and regulations regarding quarantine and isolation, it is shown that The federal government derives its authority for isolation and quarantine from the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. [3]

In further details found on the linked page titled 'Legal Authorities for Isolation and Quarantine' it is shown that Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S. Code § 264), the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states. [4]

In this debate we are focusing on Quarantine, which is understood by the CDC as something which restricts the movement of people who were exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become sick. I believe that along with the definition provided earlier by Oxford University, we can get a pretty good understanding of the main terminology and focus of this debate. This law further expands into state-specific rules regarding quarantine, but in situations where there is a conflict between governing powers, federal law stands supreme. [4]

It is now evident that anything which involves contagious disease is allowed for quarantine per the standards of either the health organizations, state officials, or federal officials.

Ebola is already known as a contagious disease, hence the quarantine of individuals suspected of having Ebola is justified by the laws and standards of governing powers as shown above. I wish to take it a step further though and solidify the justification of quarantining potential Ebola victims by showing just how deadly the disease is.

According to the World Health Organization, which recently updated their findings on Ebola as of September 2014, Ebola is a severe, often fatal illness in humans. [5] The virus is spread through the human population by human to human transmission (which justifies it as a contagious disease for the CDC quarantine standards) and has an average fatality rate of around 50%.

With all this in mind, I see no reason as to why we shouldn't quarantine individuals suspected or showing signs of this highly fatal and destructive virus.

[3] http://www.cdc.gov...

[4] http://www.cdc.gov...

[5] http://www.who.int...

Rebuttals

II. Quarantine is not "locking someone up", nor is it against Civil Rights.

My opponent poses the question of why we should "lock them up". This is something known as a Loaded Question Fallacy due to it being a question with a false presupposition. [6]

By placing an individual under quarantine, they are not being locked up. Rather, they are separated from the general public with their movement restricted. They are not placed behind bars for committing a crime, as being 'locked up' implies, but rather they are being held in a facility which can appropriately test them to see if they are carrying a deadly contagious disease. When placed under quarantine you are still free to move in the restricted area, and are being cared for by a highly trained staff which serves to meet all of your needs while being inspected. Keep in mind, the individual in question is suspected of carrying a disease that maintains a 50% mortality rate - so being placed apart of the general population is pretty reasonable. For these reasons, I do not believe it is fair to say someone is being 'locked up' when placed under quarantine.

Furthermore, my opponent claims it goes against civil liberties. This is false. The definition for civil liberty is: The state of being subject only to laws established for the good of the community, especially with regard to freedom of action and speech. [7]

I have already shown that under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S. Code § 264), the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states.

With this law in mind, it is shown that there is no civil liberties being taken from individuals placed under quarantine. In fact, civil liberties would promote such laws since it is a law that was established for the good of the community which is exactly what civil liberties hold above all else.

[6] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...

[7] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...


III. Locking people up isn't going to help people with Ebola.

I believe my opponent meant to say: Placing people under quarantine isn't going to help people with Ebola.

I would argue that this opinion is incorrect.

When under quarantine, the individual is met with several doctors, nurses, and trained specialists who perform tests and carry out observations on the individual to either confirm that there is a presence of a contagious disease or not. Without such measures, we could potentially have Ebola-stricken individuals walking around transmitting the disease unknowingly. This would cause an increase in the fatalities suffered from the general public since they would have no means for a first-line of defense for the disease. We must keep in mind, the systems are merely flu-like at first. [5] So one struck with such symptoms might not realize the seriousness of the virus which is overtaking their body. I believe, contrary to my opponent, that quarantines serve as that first-line of defense and that it most certainly helps people on both a micro and macro scale. I now leave it to my opponent to show otherwise, and believe any rational mind would see the benefits of having this first-line of defense in place.

IV. Sometimes you could be fully clothed and get Ebola.

I would view this claim as one beneficial to my side rather than Con's. I believe that due to it being able to transmit even while people are wearing clothes reflects, even more, the serious nature of this virus and gives more weight to the benefits of having systems like a quarantine in place.

V. why should we quarantine people when it makes no scientific sense?

My opponent states: he gave Ebola to two other doctors covered from head to toe. Not the family members that he lived with.

This is false. According to an article covering the nurses who were effected, proper protection was not utilized when he arrived the second time and interacted with these nurses. [8]

It is also known that Healthcare providers caring for Ebola patients are at the highest risk of getting sick because they may come in contact with infected blood or body fluids. This might explain why the nurses got infected but not the family. [9]

[8] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

[9] http://www.cdc.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
h_welling

Con

h_welling forfeited this round.
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

My opponent has forfeited Round 2.

I, therefore, extend all arguments as they currently remain standing unchallenged.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
h_welling

Con

h_welling forfeited this round.
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

My opponent has forfeited the final round.

My arguments remain standing unchallenged.

Please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by safiyat 2 years ago
safiyat
pro has lots has of factsand they should be quartined
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
h_wellingBlade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
h_wellingBlade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture, plus I agree with Pro 100%.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
h_wellingBlade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff