That question seems to be asked a lot, for more than one situation though. The situation I am talking about is how far should the government go when dealing with infectious diseases and the people infected.
I believe that major viruses, level four viruses such as ebola or marburgs, people should be isolated and confined to certain spaces. Those types of viruses cannot be killed by antibiotics, the only way to kill a virus like that is to eliminate any possiblity of it being spread to another person. And common logic says that it cannot spread if there is no one for it to go to. That is why isolation is a must.
Now the government chooses to use the military to carry out these types of isolation. I can see why the government uses military, they are trained in controlling hostile situation, and people surrounded by dying people will be hostile. But the problem with the military is when they control groups of people they give out limited information to the people they are controlling and the offten use excusive force. Now infected people are not enemies that must be controlled during war, they are still human beings that live in the country the military fights for. So they should be given as much information as possible and treated fairly. If the military can do those to things they should be used to control virus outbreaks.
No comments:
Post a Comment