Fellow passengers are suing for various amounts, based on where they were sitting:
“We think that Mr. Speaker has committed a fault, and put people into inconvenience and suffering, and therefore there should be some compensation,” he said.In a notice of the lawsuit sent to Speaker three weeks ago, damages were listed at $100,000 for each of the sisters and at $60,000 for the Laval man, who was sitting farther away.
Similar Posts:
- DVDs don’t help infants learn language
- Successful health reform requires changing physician incentives, my take in The New York Times
- Why it’s difficult to put doctors on a salary
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 16 comments }
I don’t think he makes a good poster child for civil liberties, but he still claims that he did what he was supposed to do. Now his doctor and other agree that he wasn’t as sick as the CDC claimed.
- Michael, for the US Desk at TheNewsRoom.com
He was told not to fly back to north america and seek tx in Italy by the CDC. He disregarded this order. The thing he (and other attorny’s) don’t realize is that docs (the CDC) acted on the best info available. It is easy to judge with 20/20 hindsight (the issue of multi-drug resistence). THe CDC did what was best for public health. Mr Speaker needs to realize there are other people besides HIM involved here. It is a little more difficult to step up to the plate and make a call with the best info available.
When someone’s freedom and civil liberties must be constrained for the general good, it makes sense for the burden to be shared. In this case, in exchange for protection from uncertain infections disease, society needed to indemnify Mr. Speaker from crippling financial costs of seeking care in a foreign country and paying for private air ambulance travel back to the US.
If the CDC has the actual authority to ‘order’ a US citizen to refrain from certain activities to protect the public, the public would do well to ensure that individuals constrained have their rights and expenses addressed.
The lesson learned from this episode as an individual is that the individual still bears all cost of protecting the public. This is a strong incentive not be diagnosed, and if diagnosed, to avoid the authorities.
“The thing he (and other attorny’s) don’t realize is that docs (the CDC) acted on the best info available.”
Attorneys don’t realize that? How do you know what info they acted on by the way? Are you one of them?
Spoken like a true attorney. The CDC issues an order for confinement which it hasn’t in 40 years not on the best info available? Get your legalistic head out of your butt.
PS: I suspect you would be singing a different tune if you were sitting next to the pt.
You’re right – the government never makes hasty or ill informed decisions. That’s why we have located all of Iraq’s WMD.
Good call on your part!
“You’re right – the government never makes hasty or ill informed decisions. That’s why we have located all of Iraq’s WMD”
What a poor rebuttal. What does on issue have to do with the other? Nothing. There was no solid evidence for WMD before the war and I certainly will not try to defend W. But that has nothing to do with the CDC decision on a man with KNOWN TB. Is this how you try to win court cases anon? You must starve. I guess I have a different perspective as a doc who has taken care of pt’s with TB (and converted myself s/p INH). Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.
The CDC may have well been acting on the best info available. Or maybe the best info was competing and they went with worst case scenario. The point is – you don’t know, you’re just assuming. Unless you’re a mind reader, that is.
Are you a mind reader?
Can’t people accept a little inconvenience? If this guy didn’t give them XDR TB, then they are entitled to nothing, except an apology. To expect anything more just shows how far civilized society has sunk.
“Are you a mind reader?”
As a matter of fact I can read your mind. You know next to nothing about Public Health and what constitutes a Public Health emergency. MDR TB is nothing to fool around with. In the big scheme of things the CDC was looking out for YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES HEALTH. You just don’t seem to grasp the concept.
I like how you’ve changed the debate since I pointed out your lack of knowledge on the subject. Classic move.
Earth to anon 9:25.
re: Changing the subject.
I am not trying to equate the CDC’s order with Saddam’s mythical WMD’s. In fact I mentioned the CDC’s public health role MDR TB and how it effects you. The fact is you don’t understand public health. Really, do try to get a clue or stick to law.
yeah, I know you’ve got your finger on the pulse of “public health”.
At the end of the day, though, my original point remains. You have no idea what the info the CDC relied on was. None whatsoever, your aspirations to public health genius notwithstanding.
You better limit your mindreading to guessing people’s weight at the country fair.
CJD:
The more you reply the more foolish you come across. The CDC is not Dick Cheney et al. Do you think they would realistically issue an order for confinement (the first in 40 years) on a lark to a LAWYER. Diagnosing TB is not rocket science. If there was a realistic concern of MDR TB (especially in a non-compliant pt like Mr Speaker) then what the CDC did was right. Mr Speaker does not have the “right” to infect other people with a contagious disease despite what you might think.
PS: My “mind reading” about you utter lack of knowledge on public health and public health emergencies was spot on.
Present company excepted, medical professionals have a poor track record of making the right decisions for my care. Their theory was that one thousand people should be overtreated so that one person isn’t undertreated.
someone said:”in exchange for protection from uncertain infections disease, society needed to indemnify Mr. Speaker from crippling financial costs of seeking care in a foreign country and paying for private air ambulance travel back to the US.”
The CDC told Speaker that he should NOT travel, and that if he did, it was against medical advice. He CHOSE to travel anyway, and now you propose we the taxpayers split his bill? Are you TB Andy Speaking?
Comments on this entry are closed.