The UK is strengthening its quarantine protocols as spreading coronavirus becomes an increasing public health concern
The UK government has declared coronavirus a ‘serious and imminent’ threat to public health, resulting in the revision of quarantine regulations. The Department of Health has moved to introduce new powers that will allow those suspected of having the virus to be sent into isolation, by force if necessary, if they pose a threat to public health.
Quarantine in this context is when a government, board of health, or police chief restricts a person to a particular geographic location, due to that person being exposed to a contagious disease. Quarantine is one of the most controversial measures used within the realm of public health.
Quarantine and isolation have been used as measures to control previous disease outbreaks, such as SARS and Ebola. The World Health Organization acknowledged that quarantine was imperative in controlling the spread of SARS. Conversely, several hundred thousand individuals, were placed in quarantine during the outbreak, and very few of them actually ended up developing the disease. Health officials later acknowledged that the response was disproportionate to the threat.
Utilitarianism is the underlying theory of public health - the idea that in order to prevent the spread of disease and alleviate suffering, the rights of some members of the public, through vaccination mandates, quarantine, and other measures, must be infringed. However, societies which focus on autonomy and justice might find it difficult to justify such restrictions, and normally will require that any exercise of quarantine must be preceded by demonstrating absolute necessity and the most minimal disruption to individual rights.
The legal power to enforce isolation comes from s45 of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. To strengthen these powers, The Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 have been put into place, allowing the Secretary of State or a registered public health consultant to keep a patient in isolation if they may be infected with coronavirus, and it is considered necessary and proportionate to do so in order to reduce or remove the risk of the patient infecting others. This ensures that NHS staff have the necessary abilities to keep individuals in isolation.
Quarantine can have a detrimental impact on caregivers and livelihoods of the general public. Separation from society for long periods of time can also negatively impact health and wellbeing. There are additional concerns about how effective quarantine really is. Generally, however, the key matter of interest is how governments navigate balancing public protection whilst depriving individuals of their liberty.
In Enhorn v Sweden [2005], the European Court of Human Rights made clear that any detentions must be in compliance with proportionality and an absence of arbitrariness, in that other less severe measures must be considered and found to be insufficient safeguards before quarantine measures can be deployed. For the detention to comply with these principles, it must also be established that the detained person is suffering from an infectious disease, that the spread of the disease is dangerous to public safety, and that the detention of the infected person is the last resort measure, in order to prevent disease spread. The Court found that where these conditions are satisfied, the deprivation of liberty is justified.
How the UK will use their increased powers to quarantine individuals in light of coronavirus remains to be seen. Ultimately, the government will need to ensure that the public health response is proportionate to the threat and that there is significant necessity to adopt any drastic measures.
Written by Zohra Bhimani, first year law student at Queen Mary University of London.
Photo via: Airman 1st Class Elora J. Martinez | VIRIN: 170907-F-DT423-2004.JPG