Wednesday, September 02, 2009

Massachusetts Pandemic Powers: Quarantine for Mental Illness?

To Domenico Bettinelli @ BettNet (re: your post "Massachusetts is NOT forcing vaccines on you"):

OK, Domenico. You make the point that
mandatory vaccination is not in bill S2028, and you’re right on the face of it. You say the “rumor” about the bill’s dangers is unfounded. But you obviously have a lot of unwarranted faith in the trustworthiness of our government and medical professionals.

You’re correct that
bill S2028 reads:

An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health, as determined by the commissioner, or a local public health authority operating within its jurisdiction. (S2028, lines 409-414.)

Note that “serious danger to public health” remains undefined. And what’s the cut off time on detention? 
The bill does state that isolation would be only for the period of communicability, and quarantine would be for the usual incubation period of the disease. Individuals who refuse testing or decontamination are subject to isolation or quarantine:

When the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdiction reasonably believes that a person may have been exposed to a disease or condition that poses a threat to the public health ...[they] may detain the person for as long as may be reasonably necessary for the commissioner or the local public health authority, to convey information to the person regarding the disease or condition and to obtain contact information ... (S2028, lines 432-439.)

An order for isolation or quarantine may include any individual who is unwilling or unable to undergo vaccination, precautionary prophylaxis, medical treatment, decontamination, medical examinations, tests, or specimen collection and whose refusal of one or more of these measures poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health. (Lines 464-469.)

This is somewhat vague: no definitions for “reasonably” or “condition that poses a threat to public health." Remember that that Gulag was populated with people like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who assuredly suffered from some “condition”. 

Have you ever heard of what happens in some pediatricians’ offices, when they talk young teenage girls into getting an HPV vaccine (when the wary mother is not present)? It's easy for an authority to pressure a reluctant patient who tries to refuse. Have you ever heard stories of what happens in psych wards, when they tell someone they’re “just doing a TB test” -- when in fact they’re planning to inject the distressed patient with
who knows what?   (No, I’m not speaking first person.)

Now multiply this scenario by a thousand times given fear, panic, uncertainty and irrationality during an “emergency”, and mix in lack of transparency (or competence) from our public servants. Do you still think the newly needle-enabled EMT or dentist will follow the protocol in S2028 to the letter? Do you think a frightened individual who resists will be respected? And what happens when the resister is in 
forced quarantine?  Who’s in charge there? What is the state of mind of the forcibly quarantined citizen? (Line 475 does state, "Isolation and quarantine orders must utilize the least restrictive means necessary." But who gets to determine that?)

And of course we don't really know what's in those flu vaccines. So much for trusting the authorities.

S2028 even includes a provision
“to care for any emerging mental health or crisis counseling needs that individuals may exhibit,” (all terms and places of treatment undefined) -- with their "permission" of course. Might a person resisting the authorities’ entry into his premises be determined to suffer from “emerging mental health or crisis counseling needs”? And when the authorities “exercise ... their powers ... over facilities including but not limited to communications devices” and a person can’t call his lawyer, what then? Well, then we’ve arrived at a police state, and it doesn’t matter that the new law said no one can be vaccinated against his will. The individual's will no longer counts. There’s only the power of the state.

C’mon Domenico. You’re way too trusting. The patriots have come up with the word “sheeple” for a reason.

Let’s end with this.
Who gets to define the governing terms in the law? Current Massachusetts law Ch. 111, section 6 gives this power to the Commissioner of Public Health:

Power to define diseases deemed dangerous to public health; control and prevention
Section 6. The department shall have the power to define, and shall from time to time define, what diseases shall be deemed to be dangerous to the public health, and shall make such rules and regulations consistent with law for the control and prevention of such diseases as it deems advisable for the protection of the public health. 

And if S2028 is passed, it would add after the word “diseases” (in lines 2 and 5) above:
injuries, health conditions, and threats to health. All to be defined ad hoc by an unelected official (the Public Health Commissioner), possibly in time of crisis.

And as the statists have said, never let a crisis go to waste!