Posted on: Friday, November 23, 2001

Editorial
Health crisis powers require full debate

The state Department of Health is pushing for legislation that would allow for an emergency takeover of hospitals, unobstructed access to patient health records and mandatory testing, vaccination or treatment in the event of a bioterrorist attack.

The proposal is based on the Bush administration-backed Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, which seeks to replace vague and archaic statutes with updated legal powers, standards and safeguards against potential abuse.

And who can argue with a plan to save lives in the post-Sept. 11 age of biological terrorism? Hawai'i would undoubtedly be devastated by an attack of anthrax, smallpox or other germ weapons.

At this point, however, any sweeping-powers proposal is far from a slam-dunk.

Like other states considering such laws, Hawai'i's final version of the bill will likely be a compromise of privacy rights and public health and safety protections. To be sure, the measure will stir heated debate in the upcoming legislative session.

We welcome that debate because it's best to discuss the thorny issues now rather than in the midst of a public health catastrophe.

Any measure will have to stand up to concerns about civil liberties, privacy and medical ethics. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists and certain other religious groups follow theological tenets that restrict some or all types of traditional medical care.

How do we respect their religious rights while protecting the state's population from a deadly, infectious disease?

Moreover, those who refuse to comply with emergency measures could be subject to criminal penalties. At what point do we punish people for refusing vaccinations or treatment?

Right now, the state Health Department holds the authority to quarantine. But officials say existing laws are old and frequently confusing.

At the very least, a revamping of the statutes will make us all more confident in the face of a major public health threat. But first we have to talk about what individual rights we're willing to give up for the greater good of society.