Annas George J
Health Law Department, Boston University School of Public Health, USA.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2002 Nov-Dec;21(6):94-7. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.21.6.94.
It is unnecessary and counterproductive to sacrifice basic human rights to respond to bioterrorism. Constructive public health legislation, which must be federal, cannot be carefully drafted under panic conditions. When it is, like the "model act," it will predictably rely on broad, arbitrary state authority exercised without public accountability. Public health should resist reverting to its nineteenth-century practices of forced examination and quarantine, which will simply encourage people to avoid physicians, hospitals, and public health practitioners they now trust and actively seek out in emergencies. Upholding human rights is essential to public trust and is ultimately our best defense against the threat of terrorism in the twenty-first century.
为应对生物恐怖主义而牺牲基本人权既无必要,也会适得其反。建设性的公共卫生立法必须是联邦层面的,在恐慌状态下无法精心起草。如果这样做,比如像“示范法案”那样,它很可能会依赖宽泛、专断的州权力,且行使权力时无需对公众负责。公共卫生应抵制回归其19世纪强制检查和隔离的做法,这种做法只会促使人们避开他们现在信任且在紧急情况下会主动寻求帮助的医生、医院和公共卫生从业者。维护人权对于公众信任至关重要,也是我们在21世纪抵御恐怖主义威胁的最佳防线。