Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
EDITOR In New South Wales, Australia, public health orders can be imposed
under the Public Health Act 1991. Yet in over eight years, not a single
order has led to a patient with tuberculosis being imprisoned.
Notifications of over 500 cases of tuberculosis per year mean that over
4000 cases have been effectively managed in the community. Community
based services have been able to manage every case of tuberculosis,
using clinic based nurses with minimal involvement of medical staff;
standardised treatment according to health department protocols; and
directly observed treatment, which has been practised for over 30 years. Thus costs have been contained and levels of drug resistance
have remained low.3
Rather than investing in a good public health system and well resourced
community based services, the United States seems to be using
"deprivation of liberty" to solve not only its social problems4 but also its tuberculosis epidemic. This is an
abuse of human rights and makes no sense in terms of public health.
Introducing cases of active tuberculosis into the closed environment of
a prison is inherently dangerous. High levels of mobility within
prisons, and between prisons and the community, facilitate transmission of tuberculosis between the community and prisons (in both directions) and create the situation in which epidemics in
prisons occur.5
London ought to be looking to effective programmes rather than copying
yet another American mistake.
Coker observes that the urgency of the response to tuberculosis
reflects how society views those on its margins.1 In contrast, a recent report from New York stated that, despite a reluctance to impose restrictive measures of mandatory directly observed treatment, over 3% of patients with tuberculosis (over 200 patients) between 1993 and 1995 did receive regulatory
orders.2 These are two diametrically opposed positions to
the public health response to the same disease.
Population Health, Corrections Health Service, PO Box 150 Matraville, NSW 2036, Australia
Garth Alperstein
Central Sydney Community Health Services, Camperdown, NSW 2050 Australia alpersteing{at}phu.rpa.cs.nsw.gov.au
| 1. |
Coker R.
Public health, civil liberties, and tuberculosis.
BMJ
1999;
318:
1434-1435 |
| 2. |
Gasner RM, Maw KL, Feldman GE, Fujiwara PI, Frieden TR.
The use of legal action in New York City to ensure treatment of tuberculosis.
N Engl J Med
1999;
340:
359-366 |
| 3. | Dawson D. Tuberculosis in Australia: bacteriologically confirmed cases and drug resistance, 1996. Report of the Australian Mycobacterium Reference Laboratory Network. Commun Dis Intell 1998; 22: 183-188[Medline]. |
| 4. | Stern V. A sin against the future: imprisonment in the world. London: Penguin , 1998. |
| 5. | Coninx R, Eshaya-Chauvin B, Reyes H. Tuberculosis in prisons. Lancet 1995; 346: 1238-1239[Medline]. |
Read all Rapid Responses