Printable View
Okay, here's one for all you "human rights activists" out there. Is executing people because they break quarantine and infect other people the correct thing to do?
news story
How many of you would favor the execution of people who may or may not be purposely spreading this disease? :confused:
hmmm. The Chinese govt is not known for its great civility or mercy. However you would think they would first attempt to prove the accused had sars first. Is this story verified?
The Chinese are certainly known for their draconian responses to such problems. I do believe however, that if anyone is purposely spreading this disease, they should be punished since it's so deadly. The Chinese should of been much more forthcoming with the details of this whole thing in the first place, perhaps we wouldnt be dealing with SARS on such a grand scale, atleast as far as China is concerned.
Verified? The Chinese gov't owned news agency reported it, Xinhua(or whatever). Nothing like getting it straight from the horse's mouth, eh? :D ;)Quote:
Originally posted here by gold eagle
hmmm. The Chinese govt is not known for its great civility or mercy. However you would think they would first attempt to prove the accused had sars first. Is this story verified?
In China in this recent SARS outbreak their have been numerous instances of animal killings as well, since people believe that animals are responsible for spreading the SARS virus. This has got to the point where a man threw his dog out the window, and when the dog was merely injured and not dead, he buried it alive. I know animal rights isn't exactly in vogue in China :) but this is pretty crazy. The situation over there is dire, if people aren't respecting quarantine restrictions or similar and they are spreading the disease, I don't see the problem with punishing them severely, however the death penalty is taking it a bit far IMHO, and the move towards it is probably due to the fact that SARS is scaring the shite out of people over there at the moment.
I heard about that dog incident actually. :confused:Quote:
This has got to the point where a man threw his dog out the window, and when the dog was merely injured and not dead, he buried it alive. I know animal rights isn't exactly in vogue in China but this is pretty crazy. The situation over there is dire, if people aren't respecting quarantine restrictions or similar and they are spreading the disease, I don't see the problem with punishing them severely, however the death penalty is taking it a bit far IMHO, and the move towards it is probably due to the fact that SARS is scaring the shite out of people over there at the moment.
I agree with you powertoad, the death penalty is a bit much, especially if it was done indirectly.
Doesn't SARS only have a 2% chance of killing you? Or is this only for white people?
You'd think people would have enough to deal with if they had SARS without worrying about being shot by their own government.
China is infamous for having an oppressive communist government which frankly doesn't give a damn about the rights of its citizens (I remember when the military used tanks to attack students holding a peaceful protest). Other countries should stop trading with them and allowing them to host international events (World Cup, Olympics etc.) until they rapidly improve their human rights record.
The Chinese government really do disgust me - I bet if anyone there got SARS and decided to leave the country they wouldn't be shot on sight.
I couldnt agree more, they should have never been able to join the WTO. I'm for free trade, but China has to get this Human Right's thing fixed.Quote:
China is infamous for having an oppressive communist government which frankly doesn't give a damn about the rights of its citizens (I remember when the military used tanks to attack students holding a peaceful protest). Other countries should stop trading with them and allowing them to host international events (World Cup, Olympics etc.) until they rapidly improve their human rights record.
Perhaps the WTO approval process has been, dare we suggest, impressed upon by the business elite?
I think your hitting on something there gold eagle. :pQuote:
Perhaps the WTO approval process has been, dare we suggest, impressed upon by the business elite?
I like the way you phrase your questions, it gets these threads churning again. :D
thks. Some churn is needed here in Cosmos, maybe because of the other threads are a bit boring.
This reminds me of the Sheriff's Dilemma...
There's an uprise in a town... the sheriff arrests someone (probably an innocent bystander) to please the crowd... The people want to lynch the arrestant... The sheriff should defend his office... What should he do?
He could give the arrestant to the crowd. Result: one innocent dead.
Or he could defend the innocent arrestant, causing 100's of deads in the following uprise...
I guess it's all about whether you are willing to sacrifice an innocent for the bigger interest or not...
I highly doubt that a doctor knowingly spreading a very serious disease is innocent no matter how jaded your viewpoint.
It's the equivalent of having AIDS and knowing it, but then turning right around and becoming the town whore.
The logic seems a bit off.
Quote:
I highly doubt that a doctor knowingly spreading a very serious disease is innocent no matter how jaded your viewpoint.
It's the equivalent of having AIDS and knowing it, but then turning right around and becoming the town whore.
The logic seems a bit off.
You got that right! If someone is knowingly spreading SARS, then their "innocence" has gone straight out the window. I'm gonna change my mind slightly on that one and possibly lean twoard the death penalty in this case.
This actually sounds similar to those who were knowingly spreading aids to others without disclosing they had it. Selfish? Obviously. Murder? Think so.
The other side of the dilema came up when a schizophrenic went round wielding a samauri sword and tried to charge into a crowded pub with it. The police tried to calm him down, but when he started smashing against the doors they had to shoot him to protect themselves and the people inside the pub (he had already swung for some police officers).
Were the police right to shoot him? The guy's mother doesn't think so, and wants a full investigation. Personally, I agree with the decision of the police - if it really was impossible to disarm him safely and shooting him was the only way to save everyone else, then so be it.
In his own mind, the guy was innocent (it's not like he intended to hurt anyone), but the police had to put the safety of the majority first.
So in a way this is like what the Chinese government are doing - let one person escape and possibly spread SARS, or shoot them to prevent the spread of the virus? I don't agree with the way they go about things (in the schizophrenic scenario the police were put in an unexpected situation and had to make a split second decision for which they would have been criticised no matter how they reacted) though.
It's always that way. The a**holes who robbed a Bank oof America in L.A. in full body armor have a few lawsuits in their name from thier parents. It'll fall flat on it;s face just like that lawsuit.And from the limited amount of info you provide about the story it seems to me that people who wish to do no harm don't arm themselves and smash things. Hey wait that must be my head on backwards. *turns head completeley around* Nope, it still looks the same like this. Go figure.
kd - like your new burnin heart.
Thanks. I thought it was fitting. ;)
In framing the Constitution (of the US) our forefathers had the dilemma of balancing the rights of the individual with the greater good of the whole of society. Having been freed from a tyrannical monarch, they leaned towards the rights of the individual.
There are times that this balance is tested, bent, and broken.