<p>
</p>
<p>Unless you can provide a link to their declaration of states of emergency-- I can’t find one-- I’d have to say that’s a No.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course they are. How strange that they never mentioned it over the weekend as the outrage over her treatment escalated. And how strange that if that was the plan, they saw fit to keep Ms Hickox penned in a tent for 3 days. And above all, how strange that they never let HER in on the plan.</p>
<p>BTW, as Ms Hickox was flown home on a private plane, I assume that that’s part of the “plan” too. Who’s going to pay for her trip and trips of future detainees? (Trick question. We all know there’s no plan. Just whatever reaction seems most expedient from moment to moment.)</p>
<p>Bay, the issues at play are way more complex than you try to spin. There has to be a reason and shown necessity to detain someone under quarantine orders. The CDC page says they can quarantine someone who manifests a fever on an airplane and is reported to them by the crew. Even then the analysis includes whether the feverish person presents a risk or not. Additionally, per statitory language, the detention has to be done in a reasonable manner. Does the three ring circus organized by the NJ officials look reasonable? Not in light of the facts as they are presented. </p>
<p>As I said, if the lawsuit is filed, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Should the powers of the government be extended to quarantine people just because the government wants to do so with the sole purpose to appease potential voters? </p>
<p><a href=“Ebola-quarantined U.S. nurse to sue in test of states' policies | Reuters”>Ebola-quarantined U.S. nurse to sue in test of states' policies | Reuters;
<p>And how strange that Kari Hickox, who was never symptomatic, was locked up in a tent for 3 days if the plan was that non-symptomatic people like her were supposed to be able to go home.</p>
<p>Nrdsb, according to MSF, she first had her temp taken at deboarding, and it was normal. But because of her travel history, she was sent to a special quarantine area at the airport, where she was forced to wait for 3 hours. The second temp was elevated because she was so angry. So they sent her to the hospital, where oral temp was again normal. So then they did the only logical thing they could do – stuck her in a tent with no running water for, they said at the time, 21 days. </p>
<p>In the article linked by BB, the Harvard source says Hickox will likely lose, but the Georgetown guy thinks she has a chance. Which do you like better? LOL</p>
<p>Both agree that she clearly has a cause for action, which most likely mean that the lawsuit is not going to be tossed aside for failure to state a legally valid claim. Whether she prevails would depend on many factors - as a lawyer, you are well aware that even “slam-dunk” cases can go either way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s be clear: she didn’t have what we think of as a temperature, in the sense of an elevated core temperature. Her core temperature was normal. Her face was hot, probably because she was upset. Someone with a face that’s hot, but a core temperature that’s normal, does not have a fever-- that is simply not the definition of fever. They don’t have a symptom of illness. They have a symptom of anger or sunburn or having been exercising or some other non-illness cause.</p>
<p>I’m really glad the little boy does not have Ebola. I hope he shakes off whatever he does have and recovers soon.</p>
<p>“So, what exactly was the justification for holding her for 3 hours at the airport after her initial temp was normal?”</p>
<p>I wouldn’t be surprised if they detain people for 3 hours in order to make sure they didn’t take Tylenol or Motrin to mask a fever.</p>
<p>MG, that’s too much rational thinking. My guess the answer is simple - pure red tape. It sounded like no one knew what they supposed to be doing with her. </p>
<p>So… Are those folks who detained the nurse being monitored and voluntarily quarantined? Because, you know, they might have been exposed… </p>
<p>Australia issues travel ban from affected West African countries.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/australia-bans-entry-to-visitors-from-ebolaaffected-west-african-nations/story-fni0fiyv-1227104102994?nk=3869e02cef768bd88208d484fa3a6583”>http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/australia-bans-entry-to-visitors-from-ebolaaffected-west-african-nations/story-fni0fiyv-1227104102994?nk=3869e02cef768bd88208d484fa3a6583</a></p>
<p>Just an observation that will surely rile some people up (LOL): Some of the same people who chastised others for panicking and becoming hysterical over media stories, are the same people who hang onto every word published by the media as though it is the gospel truth for what actually happened in NJ. </p>
<p>No, I do not hang on to every word that was being said, but over time, it becomes clear that some facts are reported fairly consistently by all sources. I will leave it to the courts to sort the facts out. BTW, Bay, you are in the same boat as everyone else when you state something as a fact. </p>
<p>So what facts do you dispute, Bay, and why? Citations, please. </p>
<p>From Doctors Without Borders:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/ebola-quarantine-can-undermine-efforts-curb-epidemic”>http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/ebola-quarantine-can-undermine-efforts-curb-epidemic</a></p>
<p>This is what should terrify us.</p>
<p>Did I dispute any facts? I actually love facts. What I despise is conclusions based upon either no, or unverified “facts.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I read from this is their altruism and compassion runs in one direction. </p>
<p>They have no problem going and helping people AND potentially exposing themselves to a deadly disease (some have died as a result), but when it comes to taking an action to fully prevent said disease from infecting fellow Americans, they balk at that task. By going to the hot zone, it is their choice to potentially expose themselves to a deadly disease. However, it is NOT their choice to potentially expose other Americans.</p>
<p>I am not terrified by this because these people will be replaced by others who will go over understanding the potential danger enough to apply the SAME altruism and compassion they have for afflicted Africans to take the one step to make sure what is happening in Africa does not occur here to fellow Americans. </p>
<p>Simply, just because people help others, does not mean they get a free pass to potentially hurt others. The others have a choice if they want to be potentially exposed or not. </p>
<p>Going back to the original Ebola patient:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.law.stanford.edu/news/medical-malpractice-not-easy-to-prove-in-texas-despite-concerns-over-ebola-patient”>Welcome to SLS - Stanford Law School;
<p>“Stanford University law professor Nora Freeman Engstrom points out in an interview with InsideCounsel that Texas is “really at the forefront of tort reform, and emergency room physicians and hospitals are uniquely protected.”
“Medical malpractice cases are hard to bring anywhere, even without the higher standards used in Texas,” Engstrom added.
Here, it seems clear that the hospital “dropped the ball,” she said. “Is that ball dropping enough to create liability — it’s unclear,” Engstrom adds.
In 2003, the state enacted a new standard in torts. Under that law, to assert a claim on the provision of emergency medical care, the claimant has to show a “willful and wanton negligence.” That is a higher level of culpability than the garden variety negligence seen in many other states, Engstrom said. Generally, “willful and wanton” would suggest an extra degree of negligence is needed to prove the case.
Engstrom further explained that if a wrongful death claim were made, the plaintiff would have to show the patient would have not died if the diagnosis was not botched. “Ebola is a deadly virus,” she points out. That could be a real legal problem for the plaintiff’s case. The plaintiff would have to prove that, if the earlier diagnosis had been made properly, that timely diagnosis would have prevented the patient’s death.”</p>
<p>I’m getting irritated with the frequent blaring headlines of some new potential Ebola case, accompanied by video of ambulances, lights flashing and sirens shrieking. They reporters then spend the rest of the day announcing that the test results are due “any moment now” (read: stay tuned to our station). Fortunately for the individuals and for our country, All but a couple have been cleared of Ebola. </p>
<p>I had lunch with a business associate today who was going on about the Ebola crisis, what were we ever going to do to survive, what with ebola rampant in New York, New Jersey, etc etc. </p>
<p>It seems to me the news should start to report actual cases, not just every single person who gets tested. These OJ Simpson ambulance videos are ridiculous, and lead people like my business associate to think the country is positively riddled with Ebola patients trailing fatal germs all over everything. </p>