Eye on Ethics: Leper Colonies

Disfiguring, deadly diseases like leprosy have historically been stigmatized in many cultures. Before leprosy was understood, victims were often isolated in leper colonies, a practice mentioned frequently in ancient texts, including the Bible. But leper colonies are not just an artifact of the ancient world. In Hawaii, a leper colony established in the late nineteenth century persisted until the mid-twentieth century, its residents forced to live in deplorable conditions. Although leprosy is a communicable disease, it is not considered contagious (easily communicable), and it certainly does not pose enough of a threat to justify the permanent isolation of its victims. Today, we reserve the practices of isolation and quarantine to patients with more dangerous diseases, such as Ebola or multiple-drug-resistant bacteria like Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Staphylococcus aureus. The ethical argument for this practice is that isolating infected patients is necessary to prevent the transmission and spread of highly contagious diseaseseven when it goes against the wishes of the patient.

Of course, it is much easier to justify the practice of temporary, clinical quarantining than permanent social segregation, as occurred in leper colonies. In the 1980s, there were calls by some groups to establish camps for people infected with AIDS. Although this idea was never actually implemented, it begs the questionwhere do we draw the line? Are permanent isolation camps or colonies ever medically or socially justifiable? Suppose there were an outbreak of a fatal, contagious disease for which there is no treatment. Would it be justifiable to impose social isolation on those afflicted with the disease? How would we balance the rights of the infected with the risk they pose to others? To what extent should society expect individuals to put their own health at risk for the sake of treating others humanely?