http://statenews.com What if your doctor ordered medical testing without your consent? Imagine a person going to a doctor after injuring a knee. After sitting through all the testing and X-rays, they find that their doctor also snuck in a test for HIV without their knowledge or consent. en-us Gryphon 2.2.3b-tsn (woodward)/Foundry5 Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:08:22 -0400 webmaster@statenews.com http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47334 It doesn’t stop there, if you’re even suspected of having an infectious disease (i.e. H1N1) a Probate Court judge in concert with a County Health Dept. official can quarantine, detain, test, and treat you without your permission for up to 72 hours a go. It’s all right here Also Look Here for More Forms Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:44:03 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47334 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47337 For any legal scholars interested, the specific Michigan Law that makes this possible is, Public Act 490 of 1988 as amended in PA 57 of 1997 (MCL 333.5207 of the Public Health Code) If you don’t like the idea of a judge and county health official forcibly transporting and detaining you based only on suspicion of infectious disease, I suggest you pick up that telephone and ring the phone off the hook for your state senator and state representative for immediate repeal of what I just told you. Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:01:23 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47337 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47347 Considering that such action is one of the only ways to stop an epidemic, that sounds like a great law. You’re an idiot. Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:40:42 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47347 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47354 Agreed with the above post. Quarrantine to prevent an epidemic is smart public health policy. As for the original editorial, it conveniently omits the fact that there are already provisions for HIV testing without patient consent if a health professional is stuck by a needle. Also, the claim that people would be dropped from insurance for testing positive is groundless and inflammatory. HIV-positive patients are covered under numerous plans today. The Snews either needs to show some kind of proof that patients would be dropped or retract its baseless fear-mongering. Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:51:02 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47354 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47374 The issue is public trust. Anybody can be quarantined willingly, and a person who trusts his government would do so without any gripes. The only issue is if a person refuses for religious or human rights reasons, and a judge and official force these people VIOLENTLY. I oppose all government coercion, it’s clear the previous two posters love government coercion. Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:44:28 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47374 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47378 Let’s state it another way, to explore another idea. If I have an infectious disease and I want to prevent a pandemic, do I have the right to instruct the authorities to shoot me in the back of the head and burn my body? That would be rather noble of me wouldn’t it? If I came down with anthrax, I would be a hero to have myself killed and burn my infectious body. The sensible human being finds that repulsive. I don’t find forcible quarantines and government decrees of the public health taking precedence over your human and bodily rights much different. And yes, I realize I stated it differently so that the taking of liberty (in this case one’s own life) was a choice as opposed to coercion. It’s even more repulsive when it’s coercive. Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:01:03 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47378 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47380 “I oppose all government coercion, it’s clear the previous two posters love government coercion.” It’s clear your inability to grasp logic and compassion have clouded your sanity. It’s not “government” putting sick people in quarrantine – it’s the rest of the populace, who do not want your viruses and bacteria in the general public. We support policy that keeps your sickly self from infecting others since people apparently have a hard time staying the hell away from work, stores, and school when they have serious illness. My daughter’s school mandates that anyone with flu-like symptoms must be kept quarrantined at home until they are fever-free without medication for 48 hours. By your “logic,” the evil government and the school board are depriving my child of an education. I’m sure that jibes well with your paranoid fear of government. I despise unnecessary interference of policy in my life, but this one makes sense. Maybe some day you will see shades of gray instead of pure black and white as you seem to do now. Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:24:12 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47380 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47395 I think your all idiots!!! If their were more guns on campus people wouldnt get beat up all the time, because you could pull out your gat and pop someone! i get picked on alot and it bothers me. guns lower violence, it never increases violence, every study out there proves it. it doesnt even make sense, how could guns increase violence, people are scared of guns. thats why you people should go to a real school like u of m! they are smart and allow many guns, unlike your state jr high school college, LOSERS!!! someone just try and debate me, you dont have the smarts!!!! Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:28:28 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47395 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47423 Zeke, I welcome your attacks on me personally with a smile, because it always indicates the insecurity of your coming weak counter-argument. You know, the Nazis once thought the same way of certain races and religions as you do those with infectious disease. Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:17:23 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47423 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47467 No arguing with your superior intellect Bobby. We bow down to your brain power. All hail Bobby and his brain. Hey Bobby, if I see you on the playground at lunch I’ll trade you my cup-o-soup for your apple. Deal or no? Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:19:29 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47467 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47468 Dan, the government has the authority to protect its citizens in times of emergency. This sometimes means the curbing of civil liberties, particularly when it comes to public welfare. This is why, when the public is threatened, the government can mandate vaccines or force you and I to join the military should the need arise for conscripted soldiers. Civil rights have constantly been balanced against the public welfare from the nation’s inception and can hardly be compared to national socialism. Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:35:13 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47468 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47496 “Zeke, I welcome your attacks on me personally with a smile, because it always indicates the insecurity of your coming weak counter-argument. You know, the Nazis once thought the same way of certain races and religions as you do those with infectious disease.” Shrugging off of non-existant “attack” as no big deal? Check. Complete avoidance of the actual topic? Check. Comparison to Nazis/Terrorists/Liberals/Neo-cons? Check. Non-sensical linking of public health policy and genocide? Check. Congrats, Dan. You’ve passed internet troll certification! Maybe you like to come back to topic, or have you realized that your paranoid fear of the government has clouded you to the real danger of having infectious people in busses, subways, schools, workplaces, and other public locations? Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:19:07 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47496 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47507 Ok, Zeke, apparently people are too stupid to do something without government decree (not go into public places when hacking up a lung), so why not go a step further, I say they’re too stupid to vote for representatives in our state and federal republics. Your response? Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:15:07 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47507 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47545 “I say they’re too stupid to vote for representatives in our state and federal republics. Your response?” My response is that your opinion does not carry the weight of approved public policy, nor does it represent the majority of American opinion. Decades of public health research has determined that infection vectors are everywhere in public settings, and quarrantine is an effective tool to reduce spread of contagious diseases. People also still smoke, and guess what? Laws are beign passed to ban smoking from public locations because after decades of proof that IT WILL KILL YOU AND THOSE AROUND YOU people still do it anyway. Some people must be forced to comply with common sense for the betterment of society. This is why we have seat belt laws, vaccination requirements for children starting kindergarten, and laws putting the mentally ill in institutions involuntarily. Your analysis of the average voter’s intellect is probably a cursory review based on people who dare to have a different opinion than you do. It is also not backed up with any kind of research. So you have zero comparison aside from your own limited insight. That’s not even close to comparison with public health policy designed to keep antigens away from the general public. Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:08:22 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47545