Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Contributor Biographies
- Foreword
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- PART I CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND STRATEGIC OVERVIEW
- PART II OPERATIONAL ISSUES
- 9 Public Health and Emergency Management Systems
- 10 Legislative Authorities and Regulatory Issues
- 11 Syndromic Surveillance
- 12 Triage
- 13 Personal Protective Equipment
- 14 Decontamination
- 15 Quarantine
- 16 Mass Dispensing of Antibiotics and Vaccines
- 17 Management of Mass Gatherings
- 18 Transportation Disasters
- 19 Emergency Medical Services Scene Management
- 20 Healthcare Facility Disaster Management
- 21 Mass Fatality Management
- 22 Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication
- 23 Telemedicine and Telehealth Role in Public Health Emergencies
- 24 Complex Public Health Emergencies
- 25 Patient Identification and Tracking
- PART III CLINICAL MANAGEMENT
- Index
- Plate section
- References
15 - Quarantine
from PART II - OPERATIONAL ISSUES
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2011
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Contributor Biographies
- Foreword
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- PART I CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND STRATEGIC OVERVIEW
- PART II OPERATIONAL ISSUES
- 9 Public Health and Emergency Management Systems
- 10 Legislative Authorities and Regulatory Issues
- 11 Syndromic Surveillance
- 12 Triage
- 13 Personal Protective Equipment
- 14 Decontamination
- 15 Quarantine
- 16 Mass Dispensing of Antibiotics and Vaccines
- 17 Management of Mass Gatherings
- 18 Transportation Disasters
- 19 Emergency Medical Services Scene Management
- 20 Healthcare Facility Disaster Management
- 21 Mass Fatality Management
- 22 Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication
- 23 Telemedicine and Telehealth Role in Public Health Emergencies
- 24 Complex Public Health Emergencies
- 25 Patient Identification and Tracking
- PART III CLINICAL MANAGEMENT
- Index
- Plate section
- References
Summary
OVERVIEW
Quarantine has been used for centuries to sequester potentially infectious individuals, plants, and animals until they are deemed safe for reintroduction to the rest of society. Criteria for the use of quarantine have often been subjective or based on discriminatory practice; individuals and entire communities were often cast from society and denied access to essential services. Crude efforts have been largely ineffective. Definitive protocols on time and distance necessary to contain the disease are often missing, and the efficacy of differing levels of separation is not well documented. The legal authority to quarantine exists within many jurisdictions worldwide, under many state laws in the U.S. Clear and convincing evidence to support the action is, however, frequently difficult to establish, creating significant concerns over civil liberties. When quarantine is instituted, enforcement poses significant challenges. In addition, there are limited effective plans on how to provide or pay for the secondary effects of quarantine: lost wages, impact on business and services, and logistical support such as food, water, and medical services for those individuals in confinement.
The overall objective of quarantine is to prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable diseases. The World Health Organization (WHO) has determined that crude methods of quarantine are ineffective. Current guidelines diverge from quarantine and predetermined measures concentrated at borders alone to containment strategies focused on real-time epidemiology and evidence-based data.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Koenig and Schultz's Disaster MedicineComprehensive Principles and Practices, pp. 203 - 212Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
2007: A Safer Future, Global Public Health Security in the 21st Century. Geneva: WHO.
, Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint, 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press; Berkeley, CA; 2008.
. Smallpox Response Plan. March 2003. Available at: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/response-plan/files/guide-c-part-2.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2009.
, , , , , , , et al. The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act: Planning and response to bioterrorism and naturally occurring infectious diseases. JAMA. 2002;288:622–688.Google Scholar
, , . Ethical and legal challenges posed by severe acute respiratory syndrome: implications for the control of severe infectious disease threats. JAMA. 2003;290:3229–3237.Google Scholar
. Public Health Guidance of Community-Level Preparedness and Response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Version 2, Supplement D: Community Containment Measures, Including Non-Hospital Isolation and Quarantine. January 8, 2004. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/sars/guidance/D/pdf/d.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2009.
, . The New International Health Regulations: An historic development for international law and public health. J Law Med Ethics. 2006;33(4):85–94.Google Scholar
. “Frequently asked questions about the International Health Regulations (2005)” Available at: http://www.who.int/csr/ihr/howtheywork/faq/en/index.html#whatis. Accessed January 14, 2009.
, “States Parties to the International Health Regulations (2005).” Available at: http://www.who.int/csr/ihr/states_parties/en/index.html. Accessed January 14, 2009.
, , , et al. Large-scale quarantine following biological terrorism in the United States: scientific examination, logistic and legal limits, and possible consequences. JAMA. 2001;286: 2711–2717.Google Scholar
, Model for global travel. University of Pittsburgh, Center for National Preparedness; 2007.
, , . Through the quarantine looking glass: Drug-resistant tuberculosis and public health governance, law, and ethics. J Law Med Ethics. 2007;35:526–533.Google Scholar
. WebMD Medical News. Drug-resistant TB patient in isolation. Available at: WebMD Medical News. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=81465. Accessed January 14, 2009.
, , , , , , Modeling control strategies of respiratory pathogens. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11:1249–1256.Google Scholar
. Pandemic Influenza Plan Supplement 4 Infection Control. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/pandemicflu/plan/sup4.html. Accessed January 14, 2009.
. Weekly Epidemiological Record. 30 May 2003. Available at: No 22, 2003, 78. http://www.who.int/docstore/wer/pdf/2003/wer7822.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2009.
. Public Health Guidance of Community-Level Preparedness and Response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Version 2, Supplement D: Community Containment Measures, Including Non-Hospital Isolation and Quarantine. January 8, 2004.
. International Health Regulations (2005), Annex 2. Available at: http://www.who.int/csr/ihr/WHA58-en.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2009.
, and . “The Law and the Public's Health: A Study of Infectious Disease Law in the United States;” Daniel S. Reich, “Modernizing Local Responses to Public Health Emergencies: Bioterrorism. Epidemics, and the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act,” Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy, 19 (2003):379–414.Google Scholar
, , , . Transforming public health law: The turning point model state public health act. J Law, Med & Ethics. 2006;33(4):77–84.Google Scholar
. Bill C-42: An Act to amend the Quarantine Act. September 25, 2007. Available at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c42&source=library_prb&Parl=39&Ses=1. Accessed January 14, 2009.
. Code, Title 64. Available at: http://www.publichealthlaw.net/Resources/ResourcesPDFs/4quarantine.pdf. January 14, 2009.
“An Act Granting Additional Quarantine Powers and Imposing Additional Duties upon the Marine Hospital Service.” See Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. State Board of Health, Louisiana, 186 U.S. 380, 395–96 (1902).
, 163 U.S. 299 (1896) (holding that state police power regulation affecting commerce is valid until superseded by Congress); see also William H. Cowles WH., “State quarantine laws and the federal constitution.,” American Law Review. 1891;25:45–73.Google Scholar
, 22 U.S. 1, 205–206 (1824) (“congress may control the state [quarantine] laws…for the regulation of commerce.”); Compagnie Francaise De Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana State Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902); United States v. Shinnick, 219 F. Supp. 789 (1963).
13295 as amended, Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases. Code of Federal Regulations, title 3 (2003); Executive Order 13,375 of April 1, 2005: Amendment to Executive Order 13, 295 Relating to Certain Influenza Viruses and Quarantinable Communicable Diseases. Code of Federal Regulations, title 3 (2005).
§§361–368 (42 U.S.C. 264–271) (authorizing the Secretary to make and enforce regulations to prevent the introduction or transmission of communicable diseases from foreign countries and from one state into another); Department of Health and Human Services, Control of Communicable Diseases (Proposed Rule), 42 CFR Parts 70 and 71 (November 30, 2005).
, Federal executive power and communicable disease control: CDC Quarantine Regulations., Hastings Center Report. 2006;36(2):10–11.Google Scholar
, , , Through the Quarantine Looking Glass: Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis and Public Health Governance, Law, and Ethics, J Law, Med & Ethics. 2007;35:526–533.Google Scholar
. U.S. Quarantine Stations Fact Sheet. Dec 2007. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/resources/Quarantine_Stations_Fact_Sheet.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2009.
. Quarantine Stations at Ports of Entry Protecting the Public's Health, Executive Summary. September 2005. Available at: http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3783/22845/29602.aspx. Accessed January 14, 2009.
. Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Recommendations for isolation precautions in hospitals. Am J Infect Control. 1996;24:24–52.Google Scholar
, Standing Together: An Emergency Planning Guide for America's Communities. Joint Commission, 2005. Available at: http://www.jointcommission.org/NR/rdonlyres/FE29E7D3-22AA-4DEB-94B2-5E8D507F92D1/0/planning_guide.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2009.
445 U.S. 480, 491 (1980) (holding that an inmate was entitled to due process before transfer to mental institution); see Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425 (1979) (holding that civil commitment is a “significant deprivation of liberty”).
, “Fear itself: AIDS, herpes and public health decisions.” Yale Law and Policy Review, 1985;3 (1985):479–518. See Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002) (holding that, in order to commit repeat sex offenders, the state must demonstrate “proof of serious difficulty in controlling behavior” which can distinguish a committable offender from a typical recidivist).Google Scholar