Contagious Disease and Self-Defence

This paper gives a self-defence account of the scope and limits of the justified use of compulsion to control contagious disease. It applies an individualistic model of self-defence for state action and uses it to illuminate the constraints on public health compulsion of proportionality and using the least restrictive alternative. It next shows how a self-defence account should not be rejected on the basis of past abuses. The paper then considers two possible limits to a self-defence justification: compulsion of the non-culpable and over-inclusive compulsion. The paper claims that objections to compelling the non-culpable do not greatly restrict the scope of the self-defence justification. The over-included are, however, innocent bystanders, and methods such as compulsory quarantine, vaccination, and screening are not justified in self-defence. I am grateful to Julian Lamont, Jeff McMahan and Debbie Tseung for their help with this paper. An earlier version was given at the School of Public Health, the University of Texas at Houston; the Auckland Regional Public Health Service; and a conference at the School of Population Health, the University of Auckland. My thanks to the audiences for their comments.     

Kaci Hickox: Public Health and the Politics of Fear

Kaci Hickox was a nurse who worked with persons who were infected with Ebola in West Africa. When she returned to the United States, the governors of New Jersey and Maine intervened to confine her to inpatient quarantine despite the fact that she was asymptomatic and had no serological evidence of infection. She defied the quarantine which resulted in enormous public attention and discussion of quarantine and public fear. This article summarizes the case discussing the history of the case, the government actions, and the final legal rulings.     

Working online due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a research and literature review

Given the contemporary situation of many analysts in the world now being forced to work online due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to review the working online issue. Substantial debate over previous years has questioned whether a genuine analytic process can unfold through online work. This debate is reviewed with the conclusion that such a process is not necessarily precluded. Research outcomes are then reviewed to highlight those things that can facilitate positive outcomes when working online. These cover the ‘online disinhibition effect’, the therapeutic alliance, particular ways of using the screen, focussing on trauma, the importance of self-awareness, knowing the predictors of mental health, certain potential positives of isolation/quarantine and psychotherapy interventions that may be currently needed. Final recommendations and suggestions are then presented as in the diagnosis issue, professional development and guidelines to do with practical and ethical considerations.