The facts you quote are orthogonal to the notion that this is government overreach. If it’s government overreach to order her to get medical treatment it doesn’t matter how much notice she’s been given.
Ignoring all details and focusing on just the end result as if that’s all that matters leads to foolish ignorance.
Furthermore, they didn’t order her to get medical treatment. They ordered her to stay away from potential victims if she didn’t get treated.
A “massive difference” in many contexts but not for those who oppose mandatory medical treatment.
Who else would possibly argue that this is government overreach than people with that belief?
I would absolutely be against mandatory medical treatment. But that’s not the truth here.
It’s the same old chestnut: people who wrongly think their freedoms are more important than everyone else’s freedoms. They are upset at the idea of being confined to their home when they have tuberculosis or covid or whatever. They don’t value the lives of the rest of their community and so they see themselves as victims.
“Sorenson ordered a civil warrant for her arrest, to be enforced on or after March 3, and again ordered her to jail to undergo involuntary testing and treatment until health officials deem it safe to release her.”
However, what’s the practical solution? What do you think they should do to protect the jail staff and population if she refuses treatment? Maybe we just drop her off on a deserted island?
Exaggeration aside, I’m truly curious. How do we protect everyone else’s freedom to be safe and secure from her without impinging upon hers?
This is often the point where people start bending reality rather than recognizing the hypocrisy of their beliefs. They’ll start to suggest that covid or tuberculosis isn’t actually that dangerous, or perhaps isn’t real at all, so we aren’t actually faced with this predicament.
You yourself have taken a stronger position in your prior comment: “I would absolutely be against mandatory medical treatment.” Does that mean you are now against this order, now that you are aware that it forces medical treatment?
Any predicament that boils down to “one of these parties’ freedoms needs to be impinged” demands flexibility of values. The world isn’t perfect like that.
If she refuses to cooperate and find a compromise (like staying away from people if she continues to be a risk to their lives), then regrettably, the least evil option is probably mandatory treatment. But I’m truly eager to find an alternative. Any alternative. As long as it isn’t “just let her hurt people.”
P.S. I appreciate this discussion. Please don’t think I’m coming after you— just the argument.
But you said two comments ago you were “absolutely” against forced medical treatment. This clearly has softened?
I bring this up not to dunk on you but to acknowledge a prior point you made which I think is a strong one: “people start bending reality rather than recognizing the hypocrisy of their beliefs”
I hasten to add I’m also not calling you a hypocrite! But I quote that, and in particular the “bending reality” part, because I think this goes both ways, not for just one party in a debate.
One lesson from me from Covid was that no one side in a debate has a monopoly on the practice of subordinating hard facts to emotion or prior belief and that we all have to bend over backwards to point out flawed reasoning even when it supports a position we are inclined to like. That was the whole point of my very first post in this thread.
Whatever word communicates, “only when there is no less evil alternative.”
If you believe something is a right, giving more notice before abrogating it does not factor into whether it is a rights violation.
Everything I’ve said here, by the way, is true regardless of your position on the court’s action (on which I’ve stated no position). If people believe (six people here and counting, and I’m not saying you’re one of them) that they need to downvote a basic factual observation because it vaguely seems to contradict their opinions, maybe they should examine why they so lack confidence in their opinions.
The notice is relevant because it’s indicative of due process and an attempt to respect her individual rights and balance it with the public good, which she has repeatedly ignored and results in the escalation to the rightful isolation.
Ordering her isolation and treatment is well within the historical powers of governments.
This is not overreach, it's the exact right touch to restrict harm to the other individuals in the community.
Jailing her is what could be interpreted by a reasonable person as overreach, and for that concern the amount of notice she was given is absolutely relevant.
The linked article seemed to me to clearly state if she goes to jail it’s to isolate and definitely also to get treated (“ordered her to jail to undergo involuntary testing and treatment until health officials deem it safe to release her”). Hence my focus on people who are against forced treatment - I don’t think notice and warning ameliorates their concerns at all.