Explore
For Enterprise
Join for Free
Log In

Arts et humanités
Business
Informatique
Science des données
Technologies de l'information
santé
Mathématiques et logique
Développement personnel
Sciences physiques et ingénierie
Sciences sociales
Apprentissage des langues
Diplômes
Certificats

Explorez l'intégralité de Coursera

Parcourir
Rechercher
For Enterprise
Connexion
Inscrivez-vous gratuitement

Legal Aspects of Ebola Response in the U.S., Part 1

Loading...

Ebola Virus Disease: An Evolving Epidemic

Université Emory

4.6 (130 notes) | 6.7K étudiants inscrits

Learn about the evolving Ebola epidemic and its various aspects including disease prevention, management and treatment, response to the epidemic, ethical considerations, and the post-Ebola global health landscape.

Visualiser le programme de cours

Avis

4.6 (130 notes)

5 stars
92 ratings
4 stars
31 ratings
3 stars
6 ratings
1 star
1 ratings

AH

Mar 15, 2018

Excellent overview with lectures by experienced experts. I really enjoyed this course.

GB

Sep 23, 2015

Great course on Ebola. Very engaging and intense at times. Thorough and interesting.

À partir de la leçon

Managing Potential and Diagnosed Ebola Patients

Upon completion of this module, learners will be able to: Describe the typical presentation and differential diagnosis of patients with suspect EVD. Describe the approach and necessary precautions for evaluating a patient with suspect EVD. Identify the necessary precautions for transportation of a patient with EVD. Define quarantine and analyze quarantine polices.Recognize the ways in which public health program choices, such as isolation and quarantine, require consideration of ethical, human rights, and legal principles.

Legal Aspects of Ebola Response in the U.S., Part 114:58

Legal Aspects of Ebola Response in the U.S., Part 216:45

Enseigné par

Dabney P. Evans, PhD, MPH
Assistant Professor
Carlos del Rio, MD
Chair

Transcription

This lecture considers public health law in the United States.

An important part of control of contagious disease,

such as the Ebola virus, is legal preparedness.

Understanding who has what authority and how that legal authority may be used.

In this lecture, we will consider the most commonly used public health control

measures, including quarantine, screening, and contact tracing.

All of these are subject to federal or state law, and

are critical to the containment of any contagious disease.

Control of Ebola and other contagious diseases is,

first of all, a matter of each nation's quarantine and

isolation laws, as well as its public health infrastructure and capability.

This lecture considers the situation in the United States.

These legal tools protect the public by limiting exposure to infected persons or

to persons who may be infected.

Another lecture in this course addresses international law.

But I begin with noting there's an overlap, as represented by this diagram.

As you can see, international law, federal law, and

state law all intersect to some extent.

And I hope that will be made clear by the end of this session.

Laws relevant to entry in the United States will be our first subject.

The federal government is in charge of the border.

Then we will look at the public health control measures within the United States

that are under the authority of a state government and subject to state law.

So let's start with evacuation of a medical worker from another country

into the United States.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

This is the first point of entry for anyone outside of the U.S.

This department is under the Department of Homeland Security, and

it partners with CDC quarantine stations.

We are going to examine the legal authority of the federal government

to stop and screen travelers, and to require quarantine or

isolation for persons entering the United States in two areas.

First, planned evacuations, and second, travelers on commercial airlines.

For the first Ebola patients transferred from Liberia to Emory Hospital,

both had a right of return on the basis of their citizenship, but

not a right to choose where they could travel within the United States.

Hence, the cooperative effort of Emory Hospital officials, the Centers for

Disease Control, U.S.

Customs and Border Protection, and the Federal Aviation Administration.

These, together with Georgia officials, paved the way for

the transfer of the first two patients from Liberia to Emory.

The Liberian government also agreed to the transportation plans for

those two American patients.

While normally, a nation may not prevent a non-citizen from leaving,

it can do so temporarily for health reasons.

The Liberian government, for example,

could have prevented movement of any patients out of local isolation or

quarantine, if travel within that country posed undue health risks for others.

It was necessary, then, to negotiate with the Liberian government

against this backdrop of their national legal authority.

Flight evacuations of healthcare workers include several steps for

regulatory approval.

In addition to advance approval by the U.S. State Department and

the Federal Aviation Administration, pilots must receive clearance to enter and

depart from the country where the patient is.

Upon return to the United States, the flight and crew must clear customs,

as would any flight arriving in the U.S. The Department of Homeland Security has

designated Dallas-Fort Worth Airport as the only entry point for

inbound flights with Ebola patients evacuated from another country.

Furthermore, only one air transportation company,

Phoenix Air, has the capability to transport Ebola patients,

because it has the only approved isolation tents for medical evacuations.

Prior to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa,

the CDC contracted with Phoenix Air to construct three containment

systems capable of transporting persons with serious communicable disease,

built to CDC specifications and approved by the U.S. Department of Defense.

The containment system is termed an Aeromedical Biologic Containment System.

To date, Phoenix Air has transported all of the Ebola patients brought to

the United States, and it has also evacuated patients to Europe.

All U.S. patient evacuations have been funded privately,

not by the federal or a state government.

A medical team accompanies each flight, and there has been no transmission of

the virus to them or to pilots and ground crew.

Decontamination procedures following a flight are extensive, as you can imagine.

Those procedures are governed by federal and

state regulations, as well as the company's own standards.

This permission to enter the United States is an example of

any nation's authority over its sovereign borders and internal affairs.

Some West African nations closed their borders to other nations.

The United States has not restricted incoming air travel, as it relies on, and

assists with screening for outbound flights in areas with Ebola.

The World Health Organization urges nations not to close borders with

each other because it complicates relief efforts and disrupts commerce.

The Department of Homeland Security has implemented

enhanced screening at points of entry in the United States.

Border Patrol agents have been told to ask travelers about

possible exposure to the virus.

Arriving passengers at five major U.S.

airports will be checked for fever if they have traveled from West Africa.

And all travel from West Africa is directed to those five airports.

At this point, I will focus on laws governing quarantine and isolation.

The two terms have different definitions.

Isolation separates ill persons who have a communicable disease

from those who are healthy.

Isolation restricts the movement of ill persons

to help stop the spread of certain diseases.

The other legal term we will use is quarantine.

Quarantine separates and restricts the movement of well persons who

may have been exposed to a communicable disease to see if they become ill.

These people may not be aware of exposure to a disease, or

they may have the disease but do not show symptoms.

Quarantine of persons without symptoms can take a variety of forms,

ranging from confinement at home or in a facility, to less onerous travel and

social isolation measures, along with self-reported symptoms.

The most radical form of quarantine, which is discouraged

by the World Health Organization, is known as a geographic quarantine.

A geographic quarantine might be used, for

example, to separate a group of persons who may have

been exposed to a disease until it can be determined that they are not ill.

As reported in Liberia, the attempt to cordon off a large slum in the capital

led to panic and violent repression of persons trying to escape.

Residents, quite understandably,

believed that the government had imposed a death sentence on them.

In addition, as mentioned earlier, five African countries at one time closed

their borders with each other, another example of a geographic quarantine.

In the United States, quarantine authority is divided between states and

the federal government.

This is a concept known as federalism.

If a communicable disease is suspected or identified in a person arriving

at the U.S. border or a port of entry, the federal Centers for

Disease Control may issue a federal isolation or quarantine order.

Federal regulations also allow the CDC to take measures to

prevent the spread of communicable diseases from one state into another.

Including anytime the CDC director

determines that the actions taken by the health authorities of a state

are insufficient to prevent the spread of communicable disease.

The communicable diseases subject to quarantine

are listed in an Executive Order of the President.

This image shows quarantine stations at the United States.

The federal government's authority at that point is quite limited.

It's primarily in an advisory and support role, but

it can act with the consent of a state.

The federal government can also act to prevent air travel by persons

by adding them to a Do Not Board list.

And for this reason, federal quarantine and

isolation authority is considered secondary to that of states.

The Ebola virus is different in at least two key respects from

the usual application of quarantine law in the United States.

Our experience to now has been primarily with quarantine and

isolation of tuberculosis patients.

By contrast, there is yet no test to determine whether someone who has been

exposed to the Ebola virus will develop the disease.

And the length of time from exposure to disease development

is as long as three weeks.

This means that monitoring persons with potential exposure, but who have no

symptoms, is necessary to prevent spread of the disease for up to 21 days.

This can be a substantial restriction of a person's civil rights and liberties.

If an airline passenger is suspected of carrying the virus,

they would be quarantined immediately.

Because border officials will test for fever, which can have any number of causes

other than Ebola, there will likely be many false positives,

who will have their liberty restricted for a period of time.

This is a trade-off in the balance of individual liberties and

public health concerns, necessitated by a new disease, new situations,

and new conditions, at least with respect to experience in the United States.

Public health officials have extensive legal authority to respond quickly.

Judges have very limited jurisdiction and are also inclined to

defer to medical experts on the need for emergency measures.

The likelihood in most states is that judges would postpone review of

individual claims until well after the need for such actions has past.

Were health authorities in the United States to impose a geographic quarantine,

similar to that which we discussed in Liberia, it is quite likely that

a significant police or military presence would be required to enforce it.

Such quarantines raise substantial human rights issues.

The thread must be immediate and severe.

The quarantine must be in the least restrictive manner necessary for

its purpose.

And persons quarantined are entitled, as a matter of law, to appropriate healthcare.

Screening for potential carriers of the disease also raises a number of concerns.

Who makes these decisions and who coordinates enforcement

are of vital importance and must be part of public health preparedness.

So to summarize briefly, the federal government acts to prevent

the entry of communicable diseases into the United States.

Quarantine and isolation may be used at any U.S. entry point.

The federal government may also assist state and local authorities In preventing

the spread of communicable diseases and provide expert guidance and resources.

And it also maintains a Do Not Board list, preventing air travel for patients with

any infectious disease that is a potential public health threat to passengers.

Persons are added to the Do Not Board list only

with reliable medical information provided by a state public health official.

And following a reviewed approval process by the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

State public health authorities, on the other hand, are responsible for

all public health matters within that state.

Among those powers, they initiate isolation and

quarantine within their borders.

Relying on local law enforcement officers to enforce public health orders.

They assume primary responsibility for

tracing contacts of persons who may have been exposed to the virus.

Thus, two quarantine laws are relevant for Ebola.

As an example of this interaction, consider the first Ebola patients

treated in the United States at Emory University Hospital.

The two patients required federal approval by the CDC's Division

of Global Migration and Quarantine in order to enter the United States.

CDC officials also coordinated transfer of the patient to Emory

through the Georgia Department of Public Health,

which assumes quarantine authority within the territorial boundaries of the state.

The Georgia Department of Public Health has authority to order isolation

if compliance by an individual is in doubt, and

could also impose a geographic quarantine.

Although neither the federal government nor

any state has exercised this authority.

Explorer notre catalogue

Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.

Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde, en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.

© 2019 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.

Télécharger dans l'App Store

Disponible sur Google Play

Coursera
À propos
Direction
Carrières
Catalogue
Certificats
Certificats MasterTrack™
Diplômes
For Enterprise
For Government

Communauté
Learners
Partners
Developers
Beta Testers
Translators

Se connecter
Blog
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
Instagram
YouTube
Blog Tech

Plus
Conditions
Confidentialité
Aide
Accessibilité
Presse
Contact
Répertoire
Filiales