Hershey Tina Batra, Pryde Julie A, Mwaungulu Geoffrey S, Phifer Victoria I, Roszak Andrew R
Center for Public Health Practice, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Ms Hershey); Champaign-Urbana Public Health District, Champaign, Illinois (Ms Pryde); Public Health Preparedness (Mr Mwaungulu) and Environmental Health, Pandemic Preparedness and Catastrophic Response (Mr Roszak), National Association of County & City Health Officials, Washington, District of Columbia; and Rollins Student Government Association, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia (Ms Phifer).
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2017 Mar/Apr;23(2):e25-e31. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000327.
The recent Ebola epidemic has put the words "isolation and quarantine" in the spotlight. Isolation and quarantine are tools that are often utilized by public health officials around the United States to address various types of infectious disease, including tuberculosis. While voluntary compliance is preferred, it can be difficult to achieve. In cases where an individual chooses not to voluntarily comply with an isolation or quarantine request, public health officials require assistance from the judiciary and law enforcement to effectuate the order. This article compares 2 recent court cases with different outcomes where public health officials sought assistance from the courts to enforce an isolation or quarantine order.
近期的埃博拉疫情使“隔离与检疫”一词备受关注。隔离与检疫是美国各地公共卫生官员经常用来应对各类传染病（包括结核病）的手段。虽然最好是自愿遵守，但这可能很难做到。在个人选择不自愿遵守隔离或检疫要求的情况下，公共卫生官员需要司法部门和执法部门的协助来执行命令。本文比较了最近两起结果不同的法庭案件，在这两起案件中，公共卫生官员寻求法院协助执行隔离或检疫命令。
