HealthBlawg

David Harlow's Health Care Law Blog

  • About
  • Archives
  • Podcast
  • Press
  • Awards/Reviews
  • HIPAA
  • HCSM

Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds jailing of uncooperative tuberculosis patient

July 18, 2007

A woman who refused treatment for TB was properly confined to jail for treatment, according to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  Check out the AP story and the court ruling.

Interesting tidbits: under Wisconsin law, the patient did not have to be confined to the least restrictive setting, and it was OK to consider cost (i.e., jail is cheaper than bringing in guards 24/7 to a hospital for one individual). 

Quite the coda to the tale of the tubercular honeymooning lawyer.

— David Harlow

Related Posts

  • The Supreme Court Upholds the ACA, with a Caveat About the Medicaid Expansion

    Bottom line:  The individual mandate and all other provisions of the Accountable Care Act (with…

  • SCOTUS on the ACA - The Supreme Court Rules on the Health Reform Law

    The long-awaited decision is here. 5-4, upheld. Roberts with the majority, Kennedy dissents. Per SCOTUSblog:…

  • The Supreme Court and the ACA: 5-4? Really? What the decision is about. And not about.

    The Roberts Court brought the curtain down on a fractious Term in a stranger-than-fiction kinda…

Filed Under: Health care policy, Health Law, Infectious Disease, Medical Ethics, Public Health

« The social uses of data stored in EHRs and the privacy protections needed
Is the AMA crossing the line in disclosing physician data? »

Comments

  1. cosmicamerican1 says

    July 20, 2007 at 1:10 pm

    Mr. Harlow,

    I think that your readers are entitled to a clarification. Please take a closer look at the decision. The “least restrictive” requirement does, in fact, apply to the place of confinement. The Wisconsin court unamimously held that a person who is noncompliant with treatment orders may be confined to jail only if jail is the least restrictive facility available.

    Also, you are correct in noting that the court held that cost is a permissible consideration in placement. However, cost may be factored in ONLY after the confining court has determined that the facility is a place where treatment can be provided and spread of the disease prevented, AND after the court does the “least restrictive” placement analysis. Thus, cost may be used as a sort of “tie breaker,” but, as the court held, it may not be the or even a primary consideration in placement.

    Thank you,
    Cosmic

  2. David Harlow says

    July 20, 2007 at 1:33 pm

    Cosmic —

    Thanks for keeping me honest. You are correct; the court of appeals blew past the least restrictive setting requirement, but the supreme court did not.

Threads

Follow me on: Threads

Mastodon

Follow me on: Mastodon

HIPAAtools

Hipaatools

The HIPAA Compliance Toolkit

The Walking Gallery

The Walking Gallery

Quick Links

  • Home
  • Categories
  • Archives
  • Podcast Interviews
  • HIPAAtools
  • HIPAA Compliance
  • Health Care Social Media
  • Speaking
  • In the Press
  • Blogroll

David Harlow

David Harlow

HealthcareNOW Radio

  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Book Me: Speaking
  • About
  • The Harlow Group LLC
Copyright © 2006–2025
HealthBlawg is a publication of The Harlow Group LLC. See Copyright notice and disclaimer.
Fair use with attribution and a link is encouraged. Click for more on David Harlow.
[footer_backtotop text="Back to top" href="#"]