I have been asked to discuss the pros and cons of public health officers/ environmental health officer having powers to force people to take action to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. I am to develop a conclusion about the appropriateness of the act and regulation in today's society.
This is due to a civil liberties group expressing concern over the public health act, and communicable disease control regulations. There issue is that the provisions of the legislation are too draconian in the powers granted to public health officials.
I preface the following with the disclaimer that I am not entered into any bar in Canada. I am a lawyer in the United States. The following should not be construed as legal advice and is for academic purposes only.
That being said, I believe that there are some common principles in Western Jurisprudence that can guide your discussion on the subjects in your question.
Here are some themes that I think you can touch on:
Personal Liberty - This act seems to very intrusive into an individual's life. It not only requires gathering information about persons, places, and things but actually requires people to seek treatment. Now my understanding is that you have a national health care system, so this may not be such a burden, but would the person subject to the law have any choice in the provider and extent of his treatment. There are also some serious confinement issues involved, in the United States a criminal detention is held ...
Pros and cons of public health officers/ environmental health officer having powers are articulated.