So, if we stop believing that we are immunising citizens against
diseases they may encounter either because we wish to prevent them
sufering illness,
or
because we wish to prevent them returning with an infectious illness
which they then transmit to other citizens who have never left the
country
are we about to do the logical thing of either
requiring travellers abroad to demonstrate either immunity to relevant
diseases, or by a period of quarantine or suitable examination, that
they are not returning in an infectious state
or
holding anyone who does infect another citizen, having returned from
travel abroad which they undertook without paying for an immunisation,
to be negligent and charging them for the whole cost of care and
control of the epidemic?
I submit that a sensible and ethical approach to at least the 2nd
consequence (infecting a citizen who has not travelled themselves) is
that the state on behalf of that latter citizen should attempt to
protect itself by protecting those citizens who travel abroad, and to
do so at public expense.
The second best approach is to require travellers to be immunised or
demonstrably disease free on return, but this needs regulations to be
made and enforced...
Any other armchair philosophers could ponder the correct action for the
State to take if a citizen who negligently fails to immunise himself
infects another citizen, while both are abroad.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|