Pope Thaddeus Mason, Bughman Heather Michelle
Health Law Institute, Hamline University School of Law, MS-D2017, 1536 Hewitt Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55104-1237 USA,
Hamline University School of Law 1536 Hewitt Ave, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55104 USA.
J Clin Ethics. 2015 Spring;26(1):73-83.
This issue's "Legal Briefing" column covers recent legal developments involving coerced treatment and involuntary confinement for contagious disease. Recent high profile court cases involving measles, tuberculosis, human immunodeficiency virus, and especially Ebola, have thrust this topic back into the bioethics and public spotlights. This has reignited debates over how best to balance individual liberty and public health. For example, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues has officially requested public comments, held open hearings, and published a 90-page report on "ethical considerations and implications" raised by "U.S. public policies that restrict association or movement (such as quarantine)." Broadly related articles have been published in previous issues of The Journal of Clinical Ethics. We categorize recent legal developments on coerced treatment and involuntary confinement into the following six categories: 1. Most Public Health Confinement Is Voluntary 2. Legal Requirements for Involuntary Confinement 3. New State Laws Authorizing Involuntary Confinement 4. Quarantine Must Be as Least Restrictive as Necessary 5. Isolation Is Justified Only as a Last Resort 6. Coerced Treatment after Persistent Noncompliance.
本期的“法律简报”专栏涵盖了近期涉及传染病强制治疗和非自愿隔离的法律动态。近期一些备受瞩目的法庭案件，涉及麻疹、结核病、人类免疫缺陷病毒，尤其是埃博拉病毒，使这个话题重新成为生物伦理学和公众关注的焦点。这再次引发了关于如何最好地平衡个人自由与公共健康的辩论。例如，生物伦理问题研究总统委员会已正式征求公众意见，举行公开听证会，并发布了一份90页的报告，内容涉及“美国限制交往或行动的公共政策（如隔离）”所引发的“伦理考量及影响”。《临床伦理学杂志》往期也发表过广泛相关的文章。我们将近期关于强制治疗和非自愿隔离的法律动态分为以下六类：1. 大多数公共卫生隔离是自愿的 2. 非自愿隔离的法律要求 3. 授权非自愿隔离的新州法律 4. 隔离必须是必要的最低限度限制 5. 隔离仅在万不得已时才合理 6. 持续不遵守后的强制治疗。
