Pandemic Flu Planning - Essay Example

The recommended plan of action and interventions for the influenza pandemic may have several legal consequences. Individuals, for example, have the right to question quarantines, especially if it is mandatory. The states exercise police powers with regard to matters of public health. But the courts can interfere with such power because the law provides an exception: when the measures and regulations to protect public health becomes “arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable" (Jamerson, p.31). The state of New York can implement protective actions/non-medical containment that could be contentious in this respect.

The state can close schools, restrict travel, suspend mass gatherings and impose isolation and quarantine measures (NYSDOH 2008). There are other legal issues as well. For example, if a person is involuntarily isolated or quarantined in a hospital, he cannot be forced to pay for his bills. Eminent domain issues may also emerge once the state start requisitioning facilities for quarantine, once the medical facilities are overburdened. Discrimination issues may arise in isolation, quarantine and treatment procedures.

To resolve these legal issues, the court may have to be invoked. Aside from the legal challenges to the pandemic response proposed, several other factors may hinder its successful implementation. The most important of this is the coordination required in the implementation. The pandemic plan recommended by the UHDHHS and the CDC and the plan adopted by the state of New York are both based on “early, targeted, layered application of multiple partially effective nonpharmaceutical measures”.

As such the successful implementation relies on the individuals, agencies and organization tasked with specific responsibilities within a structured framework. Failure from one of these will impact the performance of others and jeopardize the entire plan. This is highlighted in the case of New York where the public health system relies on local health departments where authority and responsibility for public health preparedness and response is delegated at the local level (NYSDOH, p.vii). The State Department of Health coordinates the efforts but only supports the leadership at the local level.

This could be problematic especially when local health departments are not equipped or are overwhelmed during an outbreak. It will be difficult to allocate or reallocate resources. Also, there is the case of coordination between governmental agencies. The plan, for example, may require the participation of the law enforcement agency. If such coordination is not well defined, clarified, understood or agreed to, problems will surely arise. Issues such the amount of force to be used, how the police officers would interact with infected individuals, the manner of arrests and so forth will further complicate the pandemic response strategy.

Again, the phase 5 pandemic is still manageable. The level of transmission is still low that strategic, timely and effective preventive measures should be enough to keep it from reaching level 6. I would like to cite the resources, mechanisms and preparedness of the state of New York in this respect. The state is highly capable in all these aspects that the planned interventions would be seamlessly implemented, achieving the intended mitigating objectives in the process. There is also the