Confinement in the management of drug-resistant TB: The unsavoury prospect of balancing individual human rights and the public good
In the context of expanding TB and HIV epidemics in South Africa, the decision to enforce non-voluntary admission for XDR TB raises many ethical and human rights dilemmas, principally because it trades off the human rights of individuals against the public good. However, the dichotomy may also involve competing rights claims and rights obligations of the state to control infectious diseases. A more careful rights analysis is provided, using established analytical frameworks, to elicit the possible criteria that could justify limitation of individual rights. Generally, only in very restricted situations where there is a clearly defined risk to one or more third parties, based on evidence, and conditional on thorough consideration of available alternatives, could non-voluntary admission be considered. Community-based strategies will need to be developed to cope with infection control without forced admission for most cases. Even when compulsory admission is needed, strict adherence to administrative justice procedures would be required. Confinement has no place as a strategy for the broader control of an epidemic which should be contingent on improved health system functioning and addressing the abysmal investment in research and development for drugs for neglected diseases worldwide.
South African Journal of Bioethics and Law Vol. 1 (1) 2008: pp. 11-19