Should Persons Detained During Public Health Crises Receive Compensation?

Abstract

One of the ways in which public health officials control outbreaks of epidemic disease is by attempting to control the situations in which the infectious agent can spread. This may include isolation of infected persons, quarantine of persons who may be infected and detention of persons who are present in or have entered premises where infected persons are being treated. Most who have analysed such measures think that the restrictions in liberty they entail and the detriments in welfare they impose can be justified and this paper proceeds from the assumption that detention measures are justifiable in some circumstances. Such measures are often implemented without any compensation being given to the persons who are detained. This raises the question: What do we owe to those whose liberty is justifiably restricted (e.g. through isolation, quarantine or detention) as a public health measure during a public health emergency? More specifically, do we owe them compensation for any losses they experience? The paper falls in four main sections. The first section provides examples of the current regulatory state of affairs from the US, Canada and WHO. The second section lays out the liberal, welfarist and pragmatic arguments for providing compensation. The third section discusses the arguments against compensation and the fourth and final section provides the conclusion. It is argued that the arguments for providing compensation clearly outweigh the counterarguments and that the default public policy therefore should be that compensation is provided.

Leave entitlements, time off work and the household financial impacts of quarantine compliance during an H1N1 outbreak

“…Employers should be encouraged to provide flexible working arrangements, such as allowing employees to work from home or to make up hours at a later date. Setting aside the question of whether access to paid sick leave should be available to all workers, there are strong ethical arguments [19] and community support [20] for the provision of compensation to individuals who experience loss of income as a result of public health measures such as quarantine. Policy initiatives along these lines are not unprecedented: several countries affected by the SARS outbreak introduced some form of compensation for affected households [21].…”

Regulamento sanitário internacional: emergências em saúde pública, medidas restritivas de liberdade e liberdades individuais

“…Os artigos analisados enfatizam a necessidade de utilização das medidas restritivas de liberdade, mas problematizam pouco as consequências de sua aplicação. Quarentena e isolamento apresentam a dualidade básica, demonstrada pelas restrições de liberdades em confronto com o bem-estar coletivo 44 . Entretanto, alguns autores ignoram até mesmo a diferenciação entre quarentena e isolamento e apresentam tais medidas como sinônimas 45 .…”

“…Foram identificadas dificuldades sobre elementos econômicos, psicológicos, comumente envolvendo a família, problemas de comunicação e competências. No tocante aos aspectos econômicos ressalta-se, como desvantagens, a diminuição e ou perda da renda, perda de emprego e falência das atividades comerciais 40,44,53,70,73,74,79,80,81 . Em todos os estudos foram pontuados aspectos problemáticos, no mínimo os econômicos, relativamente às medidas de isolamento e quarentena -mesmo quando voluntárias, tidas como amplamente aceitas 77,82 .…”

“…Foram encontrados argumentos sobre a necessidade de pagamento para pessoas em quarentena e isolamento, com posições contra e a favor e referências de lacuna na legislação da maioria dos países sobre como as pessoas podem ser compensadas pelo Estado 40,43,44 , inclusive, com a possibilidade de garantia do emprego durante o período 85,88 .…”