By Jen Petersen, Communications Associate
 
If you feel a certain panic in the air about the news of a handful of nurses and doctors in the United States who have contracted Ebola, you're not alone.
 
The news of the Ebola epidemic in primarily three West African countries (Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone) and a handful of subsequent infections in the US have segments of the public and elected officials calling for the quarantine of those traveling from affected regions. The American Civil Liberties Union believes the civil rights and liberties of affected people must be taken into account in formulating a measured response to the epidemic.
 
First and foremost, we believe that the response to Ebola must be guided by sound medical science, not fear. Public policies need to conform to what scientists and public health experts say will actually be effective in combating this disease. The public health profession has learned through many years of experience what works and what does not work, and we should listen to them.
 
People who have been exposed to Ebola must be treated as human beings who need medical assistance, not enemies. Many of those who have been exposed to the disease have been risking their lives working in Africa to save lives, and stop a disease that is a threat to the whole world. While all appropriate protective steps should be taken, they should be treated as returning heroes no less than soldiers who have fought on behalf of our country. Policymakers need to approach this problem first and foremost as a public health problem, not as a law enforcement or national security matter.
 
Treating people with dignity is not just a matter of respecting civil liberties and other American values; public health experts say it's actually a vital part of any effective response to disease. Treating people like enemies is counterproductive because stigmatization and extreme reactions can drive them underground, tempt them to lie about their experiences, and make them hesitant to seek diagnosis and treatment. And severe treatment of caregivers is particularly problematic because we depend upon them to fight this disease; the Ebola epidemic in Africa is the source of the threat, and if we deter health care workers from volunteering to help fight the epidemic, public health experts say it will only make things worse. 
 
The ACLU recognizes that when a threat to public health becomes serious enough, incursions on people's rights that would normally be unacceptable can become justified. But of course we all want to preserve individual freedom as much as possible; that's why it's important to stick to what public health experts say is truly necessary. However, authorities should rely whenever possible on voluntary social distancing measures rather than mandatory quarantines. Except in very rare cases, people seek medical care if they're sick, and don't want to infect others. Coercive measures should only be used when public health experts say that voluntary and other less-restrictive alternatives are not available or effective.
 
In some states people are being forcibly quarantined just because they have been in West Africa. Given that Ebola is not transmissible before the onset of symptoms and is not a highly transmissible disease generally, and that individuals have strong incentives to carefully monitor themselves, the CDC and other public health experts have not judged such steps to be necessary. Where individuals cooperate with the authorities in allowing close monitoring of their health and other reasonable precautions, the imposition of quarantines appears to be driven by politics rather than science, and therefore raises serious civil liberties concerns.
 
As one of the nations foremost organizations committed to civil liberties, we urge our federal and state leaders to put in place sensible, scientifically-sound policies that are no more restrictive than is absolutely necessary. The best interests of South Dakotans amidst the concern of Ebola are served not by panic, but by a reasoned approach to policymaking and rational decision-making.