Case Study 2: Small Pox

1
Case Study 2 Small Pox

• Group 3
• Danielle Scozzaro
• Olivia Schaffer
• Brianna Panepinto
• Breana Schultz
• Kaela Smith

2
Giving the Position

• Our Question If CDC declares a mandatory
  quarantining of people directly exposed to the
  victim, i.e those living in his apartment
  complex, those working in the ER, those who flew
  on the plane in the prior week, what moral
  concerns might be associated with this decision
  and is the action morally justified?
• Yes, it is morally justified to get everyone
  tested that has been in close contact with the
  virus. Not testing can spread the disease of
  Smallpox all over and then cannot be contained,
  making it an ethically sound reason to get the
  virus contained by testing those who were in
  contact. We will be using Mills theory to prove
  our reasoning.

3
Small Pox Outbreak

• June 22, 2006, a 27-year-old man is brought into
  a New York City emergency room with a 101-degree
  fever, and what he believes is chickenpox
  (Varicella).
• The hospital staff then determined that he was
  infected with the small pox virus and was
  quarantined.
• They back tracked anyone he had come in contact
  with and realized he had been in perfect health a
  couple of days earlier and ended up dying 7 hours
  after being admitted into the hospital.
• Vaccinations were administered to workers in the
  hospitals, co-workers, people living in his
  apartment complex, and made it available to
  everyone in the cities he worked flights to.
• It was suspected the transmission was from a bio
  terrorist.

4
Facts on Smallpox

• Smallpox is a very contagious infection that is
  caused by the variola virus.
• Since the virus is so contagious is it is
  important to stay away from those who are
  infected.
• 12 days after being infection symptoms start to
  show. They are high fever and body rash.
• Smallpox is spread from one person to another
  through coughing, sneezing, or breathing. Also it
  can be spread through blood.
• There is no cure for smallpox, the treatment for
  an infected person is to drink lots of fluids and
  take pain medication to keep the fever and pain
  under control.

5
CDC

• The CDC defines quarantine as to separate and
  restrict the movement of well persons who may
  have been exposed to a communicable disease to
  see if they become ill.
• If the CDC suspects an outbreak of disease they
  may issue an federal isolation or quarantine
  order.
• The CDC can perform this because it is considered
  a police power function, derived from the
  right of the state to take action affecting
  individuals for the benefit of society.
• If a person breaks a federal quarantine order
  they can be punished with fines or imprisonment.

6
John Stewart Mill

• Mill argues that the moral worth of actions is
  to be judged in terms of the consequences of
  those actions (John Stuart Mill, 2007).
• The good as defined by Mill would be that the
  presence of pleasure and the absence of pain, so
  for Mill determining the proper action involves
  adding up the aggregate of pleasure and the
  absence of pains suffered by the members of the
  community (Garrett, Baillie, Garrett, 2001).

7
Applying Mills Theory

• By applying Mills utilitarian belief it would be
  morally justified to quarantine everyone who has
  been in direct physical contact with him to
  lessen the chance of infection. According to
  Mill
• The large majority of actions intend the good of
  individuals (including ourselves) rather than the
  good of the world. Yet the worlds good is made
  up of the good of the individuals that constitute
  it (John Stewart Mill, 2007).
• When we are evaluating whether or not an action
  is good by evaluating the happiness that we can
  expect to be produced by it (John Stewart Mill,
  2007). So by quarantining everyone who was in
  direct physical contact with him it would
  minimize the mortality rate than if the affected
  persons were able to go about freely and infect
  others which could result in an worldwide out
  break.
• Which requires Mills utilitarian conscience
  (i.e. a strong feeling of obligation to the
  general happiness) by showing how such a feeling
  can develop out of the natural desire we have to
  be in unity with fellow creaturesa desire that
  enables us to care what happens to them and to
  perceive our own interests as linked with theirs
  (John Stewart Mill, 2007).

8
Counter Argument

• Some people might argue that mandatory
  quarantining is not morally justified because of
  the moral concerns that we discussed. (privacy,
  happiness, and autonomy)
• Kant for example said, we ought therefore to
  treat people as having a value all their own
  rather than merely as useful tools or devices by
  means of which we can satisfy our own goals or
  purposes. It may be argued then, that
  quarantining those who do not want to be
  quarantined would be treating them as mere means
  to the end of not spreading small pox and not
  treating them as if they are important in and of
  themselves.
• We would refute Kant by arguing that the health
  of the society in the future will be better for
  each person and therefore the individuals best
  interest is what the CDC is pursing by doing the
  quarantining.
• Rawls would argue also that in order to be fair
  and just the veil of ignorance is used.
  Therefore everyone should be given the
  quarantining as a whole society instead of being
  biased to those who were near the flight
  attendant.
• We would refute Rawls by arguing that the money
  and quarantining is limited and we want to do the
  least amount of harm to the greatest amount of
  people, so keeping as many people as possible
  away from the quarantine is in the interest of
  the society as a whole.

9
Conclusion

• Yes, it is morally justified to get everyone
  tested that has been in close contact with the
  virus. This is because more people will benefit
  from the quarantine versus no quarantine and the
  infection spreading.

10
References

• http//health.yahoo.com/other-other/smallpox/healt
  hwise--tn8265.html
• http//www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/facts2.htm
• Garrett, T. M., Baillie, H. W.,  Garrett, R. M.
  (2001). health Care Ethics (4th ed.). New
  Jersey      Prentice Hall. (Original work
  published 1989)
• John Stuart Mill. (2007, July 10). Stanford
  Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved October
  22, 2008,from http//plato.stanford.edu/entries/mi
  ll/
• John Stewart Mill-Overview. The Internet
  Encycolpedia of Philosophy. 2006. 30 Sept. 2008
  http//www.iep.utm.edu/m/milljs.htm
• http//www.privacy.gov.au/publications/chib.html
• http//www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti
  on.amendmentxiv.html