Is That TB Guy The Biggest Asshole Ever, Or What?

The BBQ Pit
521

[QUOTE=Zabali_Clawbane]

Of all the people in this topic who have expressed their outrage at Speaker’s actions, you pick me. (Not the OP, not anyone else, me.) And, you don’t even get my gender correct. There is a reason (though little good it did) I have my location field reading “Female in Kansas”.
[/QUOTE]

If it helps any, I thought the same thing about you, Zabali_Clawbane, but I did notice your gender in the location field, so it didn’t have anything to do with your gender.

My reasons for thinking that is that regardless of how much news came about about TB guy and whether the news was positive or negative, your arguments were pretty much the exact same. If more negative news came to light, I suspect you could get more negative about TB guy, but no positive news has swayed your position even a tiny speck.

I was going to ask if TB guy turns out to be negative for contagiousness and no person that tests for it on any of his flights turns out positive, would you change your stance? But having seen your responses, I doubt it would even make a dent.

522

[QUOTE=Capatalist Lion Tamer]
You mean, members of the CDC like his father in law? You know, the guy who is an expert on TB, knew all the fact of the case, and was still comfortable with his son in law flying …
[/QUOTE]
Is there a cite for this statement that his father-in-law was comfortable with Mr. Speaker flying? Maybe I missed something in this humongous thread, but all I’ve heard from the father-in-law is noncommittal quotes like this one (forgive me for quoting from fox news):

or this one (bloomberg.com):

I think I’m going to have to agree with our esteemed guest Barrett Bonden. I will also sum up what I’ve gleaned from all these articles. From what I read, the sequence of events is this:

Mr. Speaker learns he has turberculosis in January 2007, at some point is advised not to fly to Europe, but not told he absolutely should not fly to Europe. Since he has an expensive trip and a wedding planned he decides to go anyway and leaves in May 2007. However, before he left, he was told and believed that his “one shot” at treatment was in Denver. Before leaving he knew he had multiple drug-resistant tuberculosis.

While Mr. Speaker is in Europe, test results show he has a much more dangerous form of tuberculosis than originally predicted, namely XDR-TB.

CDC representatives contact him in Europe and tell him to check himself into a hospital in Italy, and not to take any commercial flights. They do not offer an inexpensive way for him to fly immediately back to the USA and Mr. Speaker decides to disregard the CDC’s request and travel through a circuitous route to avoid detection.

At the end of his various plane and car trips, he ends up at Denver’s National Jewish Medical and Research Center, where a Dr. Gwen Huitt says that Mr. Speaker can be considered low infectivity at this point in time. Pending the results of a third test, Mr. Speaker could be allowed brief escorted trips outside his isolated hospital room.

I am omitting several statements from either party (Mr. Speaker vs. CDC) that could be construed as self-serving by one or the other, and on which there currently seems to be disagreement between the two parties. I have tried to include only things that all parties agree on.
Some facts I would like to know:
When CDC officials contacted him in Europe, they told him the strain of tuberculosis was much more virulent than originally thought. Was there any discussion of infectivity at this time? Was Mr. Speaker told that he was virtually non-contagious?
During the conversation with the CDC, was he told he should wear a mask in public?
Regardless of what he was told by the CDC, did he wear a mask on his flights?

My opinion, subject to change upon further information being provided:

a) Mr. Speaker should not have left in the first place, knowing that his doctors recommended that he not fly, and knowing that there was only one place in the world that could cure him! This is somewhat foolish and irresponsible, but hey, when you have a nice vacation and a wedding planned, I could somewhat understand this.

b) When learning that he has a very virulent form of tuberculosis, and being asked to stay in Italy, he should not get on a plane.
Some people excuse him by saying that he was panicked, thinking that a Denver hospital was the only place in the world that could save him. What if he had infected other people who cannot afford, or would not be allowed, to go to Denver? Doesn’t he care that he would be giving those other people a death sentence?

Personally (perhaps this is because I’m from Europe) I find this whole idea that “remaining in a european hospital is a sure death sentence” is nonsense. But if Mr. Speaker absolutely trusts medical opinion that he can only be saved in Denver, then it seems to me that he should also absolutely trust medical opinion that he should not get on a plane!

Another offered excuse for his return via commercial airline is that he wasn’t really contagious. Firstly, did he know that for sure? That is an open question from what I can tell. If it is so incontrovertible that he isn’t contagious, why is the hospital in Denver awaiting the results of a third test before allowing him brief escorted trips outside his isolated hospital room?

So far, my verdict is that this person acted selfishly and with an objectionable disregard for others. I cannot find it in me to excuse his behaviour.

523

[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried]
So far, my verdict is that this person acted selfishly and with an objectionable disregard for others. I cannot find it in me to excuse his behaviour.
[/QUOTE]

Heffalump and Roo, I feel the quote above nicely sums up my viewpoint. FWIW, some here might consider me a “bleeding heart liberal” as well. I just do not see anything that shows me he didn’t grasp that what he was doing was risking others for his own wants. I cannot give actions based on those motives a pass.

524

[QUOTE=Zabali_Clawbane]
Speaker is a lawyer, he knows very well when the term “advise” is used in instances like this, it is a more subtle way of saying “don’t do it”.
[/QUOTE]

If he really was advised not to travel, and also told that he wasn’t contagious, he might conclude that the advice wasn’t for the sake of others, but for his own benefit only.

525

[QUOTE=Barrett Bonden]
Has he earned a statue between Pol Pot and Josef Stalin in the Museum of the Demented and Unquestionably Evil? Probably not. I vote for a commemorative gorse bush in the Museum’s Tangential Butterfly Garden, between Ted Kennedy and Paris Hilton. If it turns out he’s infected a couple of innocent bystanders, I’ll throw in an inscribed plaque.
[/QUOTE]

How about putting up one of those little red dog-poop bins in his honour? His name can go on the outside, and if he’s infected someone his picture can go on the inside…

526

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Seems to me that the confidentiality argument is a complete sham. Because Speaker has clearly waived any confidentiality rights in that meeting by publicly challenging Fulton County to answer his question. Anyway, if the meeting was so confidential, why are county officials publicly stating that Speaker was advised not to travel? Gimme a break.

Looks to me like the Fulton County officials are full of shit and know it.
[/QUOTE]

I gather that you don’t believe the official statements given by the Fulton County Health Department, but I’m not sure I understand which of my conclusions you are contesting. I acknowledged that there are several different stories circulating regarding that meeting. I allowed for the possibility that Speaker did not comprehend that he was contagious (See “ignorant and inconsistant” Post 517 ).

To hash out that specific point: I would be delighted if the controversial Speaker-Dad recording were released. I’m really curious to hear what went down in that meeting. I suspect it was a “clash of cultures,” in which the doctors used science-speak to explain to him why Speaker ought not travel while Daddy used lawyer-speak to establish that they weren’t actually forbidding him from doing so. To be fair, at this point in time neither side fully understood what was at stake. Fulton County apparently assumed that once they explained to him that he shouldn’t fly, he wouldn’t fly. Whereas Speaker just wanted to extract an assurance that it was okay for him to proceed with his wedding plans. Once the XDR TB diagnosis was made, that conversation suddenly took on far greater significance.

For the record, I tend to believe the Fulton County Health Department. Speaker claims that they told him he was “not contagious.” But he was contagious. Any doctor who reviewed his chart knew that he was contagious. Why would any doctor have told him otherwise? Speaker may have misinterpreted the words “relatively non-contagious,” but he shouldn’t blame Fulton County for that.

The Fulton County Health Department had no motivation to give Mr. Speaker incorrect information. Mr. Speaker, however, was strongly motivated to misinterpret the information given to him by the Fulton County Health Department.

I’m not razing the Andrew Speaker Honorial Gorse-Bush just yet.

527

[QUOTE=Heffalump and Roo]
I was going to ask if TB guy turns out to be negative for contagiousness and no person that tests for it on any of his flights turns out positive, would you change your stance? But having seen your responses, I doubt it would even make a dent.
[/QUOTE]

In my opinion, all of those things coming back negative doesn’t really change what he did.

If you drive drunk and don’t hit someone, it’s the same thing as driving drunk and hitting someone.

If you attempt to shoot someone, it’s the same thing if you fail as if you succeed.

The result of the action is important when it comes to law, but the ethicality (is that a word?) of an action isn’t dependent on the result.

So, if you do something you don’t believe has a risk and it ends up killing someone, that is ethically better (not legally, I’m making no legal claim) than doing something you believe has a high risk that kills no one.

528

[QUOTE=Barrett Bonden]
<snip>
For the record, I tend to believe the Fulton County Health Department. Speaker claims that they told him he was “not contagious.” But he was contagious. Any doctor who reviewed his chart knew that he was contagious. Why would any doctor have told him otherwise? Speaker may have misinterpreted the words “relatively non-contagious,” but he shouldn’t blame Fulton County for that.

The Fulton County Health Department had no motivation to give Mr. Speaker incorrect information. Mr. Speaker, however, was strongly motivated to misinterpret the information given to him by the Fulton County Health Department. <snip>
[/QUOTE]

Exactly! This is what I said earlier, and have maintained. Yet, some people think I have an axe to grind against Mr. Speaker. I don’t, I just think he’s an ass, and selfish to boot.

529

[QUOTE=Barrett Bonden]
For the record, I tend to believe the Fulton County Health Department.
[/QUOTE]

As a former resident of Atlanta, I can’t believe I am defending anything remotely associated with Fulton County. What is this, Bizarro World?

530

[QUOTE=Heffalump and Roo]
I was going to ask if TB guy turns out to be negative for contagiousness and no person that tests for it on any of his flights turns out positive, would you change your stance? But having seen your responses, I doubt it would even make a dent.
[/QUOTE]

Speaker is contagious . He’s not very contagious, so we can reasonably hope that he has not infected anyone else.

531

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]

So, if you do something you don’t believe has a risk and it ends up killing someone, that is ethically better (not legally, I’m making no legal claim) than doing something you believe has a high risk that kills no one.
[/QUOTE]

The point that many of us are trying to make is that Speaker did not believe he was a risk to anyone.

532

[QUOTE=Barrett Bonden]

For the record, I tend to believe the Fulton County Health Department.
[/quote]

Do you agree that the Fulton County Health Department refused to answer a simple yes or no question, publicly asked by Mr. Speaker?

Do you believe Fulton County’s claim that they won’t answer Mr. Speaker’s own question in order to protect Mr. Speaker’s privacy?

And if you believe that Speaker’s privacy is that important to them, then how do you explain the fact that they made any public statements at all about what he was advised to do?

533

[QUOTE=Capatalist Lion Tamer]
The point that many of us are trying to make is that Speaker did not believe he was a risk to anyone.
[/QUOTE]

You say that as if what I posted contradicted that.

The post to which I was replying asked if the result of his actions (whether he ended up infecting someone) changed opinions of his actions. I was explaining that I feel the result is immaterial. Ends neither justify means nor condemn them.

I find it extremely unlikely that he genuinely believed himself to be no risk, though.

534

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
You say that as if what I posted contradicted that.

The post to which I was replying asked if the result of his actions (whether he ended up infecting someone) changed opinions of his actions. I was explaining that I feel the result is immaterial. Ends neither justify means nor condemn them.

I find it extremely unlikely that he genuinely believed himself to be no risk, though.
[/QUOTE]
The very fact that he was advised not to fly, to whatever degree it was stated, should have been a solid clue.

It seems the question really to be asked is not “Did he believe he was contagious?” but “To what degree had he deluded himself into believing he wasn’t contagious?”

535

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]

I find it extremely unlikely that he genuinely believed himself to be no risk, though.
[/QUOTE]
Never discount the power of self-deception, the ability to rationalize a desired course of conduct, no matter how slender the objective justification.

Which still doesn’t excuse his jackassery.

ETA: What 5-4-Fighting said.

536

If he believed that the risk to others was minimal, his belief was accurate and probably justified.

537

There is an article in this week’s Newsweek that has a timeline of all the events that I found helpful. It also claimes that his father taped the conversation with the CDC before he left and that it clearly says, at least twice, that Speaker is not contagous. (Speaker’s father claims this, not Newsweek, who has not heard the tape.) I guess his father is also a lawyer and that is why he taped the conversation, to cover his ass. He claims they are planning to release this tape, so we shall see - that might clear things up a bit.

The article also describes his TB as “dormant”, and says that means it is not contagous, although another part of the article says Speaker knew he had “active” TB so that is confusing. It also puts his diagnosis much closer to his departure date, I think in May IIRC, not January. I believe Jan. is when the mass on his lung was discovered, but maybe he didn’t get the test results of TB until later? But either way, he did know he had TB when he left (whether or not he thought he was contagous will be the key here, I think), and he left 2 days before he was originally scheduled to go without informing the CDC, for whatever that is worth.

It also says that the father-in-law claims he has been ruled out as the source of the disease, and that Speaker was a frequent traveler and they think he could have picked it up during a trip to Asia.

I will be interested in hearing that tape if it ever comes out.

538

Frankly, I just cannot understand why “TB Toby” would even think about going anywhere once they told him he had TB. It’s a nasty, nasty disease, even in it’s most treatable form. Were I to get a diagnosis of it, or any other disease, where the doc’s said, “We’ve got to wait for the tests to come back before we can determine what kind of treatment we need to give you.” my first thought would not be, “Hey! I can still go on my Honeymoon!” It would be, “I need to stick close, and be available to them so that the moment the test results come back, they can start treating me.” I’m wondering if the dude doesn’t have a phobia of doctors, and that’s why he didn’t think about staying close to home.

539

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Do you agree that the Fulton County Health Department refused to answer a simple yes or no question, publicly asked by Mr. Speaker?
[/QUOTE]

No. I expect that the Fulton County Health Department (FCDOH&W hereon) made an initial public statement to the media containing information pertinent to the case which they were legally permitted to release. Following their initial public statement, Mr. Speaker publicly asked the question to which you refer, knowing that the press would relay the question to FCDOH&W. The FCDOH&W has not made an additional public statement which directly answers that specific question. Do you understand that this is different than the scenario that you pose?

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Do you believe Fulton County’s claim that they won’t answer Mr. Speaker’s own question in order to protect Mr. Speaker’s privacy?
[/QUOTE]

No. However, I believe they are correct to invoke Mr. Speaker’s privacy as it is a very proper reason for refusing to provide the press with additional information regarding that meeting.

[QUOTE=brazil84]
And if you believe that Speaker’s privacy is that important to them, then how do you explain the fact that they made any public statements at all about what he was advised to do?
[/QUOTE]

The patient’s name, condition, itinerary, and meeting with the FCDOH&W had already been published in the media. The FCDOH&W revealed that during the meeting, the patient was advised not to travel due to his condition. There is nothing improper in this revelation.

I’m going to guess that you would like to know why Dr. Eric Benning has not been permitted to speak with the media and why the FCDOH&W is refusing to provide more details on the May 10 meeting. I would like to know that also. For your entertainment, I have provided a few guesses below.

First, when Dr. Benning was hired by the FCDOH&W, he probably wasn’t hired to field international press conferences. He’s a scientist. Maybe he’s a shy scientist. I sincerely doubt his job involves media relations and probably, he’s quite content having it that way. Note that the other agencies interacting with the press are using their Media Relations team members for this purpose and it is certainly Fulton County’s prerogative to do so.

Second, when the Speaker family made it publicly known that they had taped the conversation and not notified Dr. Benning, the entire tenor of the debate was changed. If Dr. Benning in a press conference used a different figure of speech than he had during the initial meeting, it would be immediately pounced upon as an inconsistency and used to call his judgment into question. It is not in FCDOH&W’s best interest to release what can only become alternate versions of a story when there are very real legal ramifications for doing so. They are going to stick to their already released party line.

Please believe me, I have no desire to become the official apologist for the Fulton County Health Department. That said, I think the Department did their job properly and was thwarted by a patient who didn’t like their message and wouldn’t follow their recommendations.

Speaker is now understandably eager to share blame. I don’t see that Fulton County is therefore obligated to share it.

540

[QUOTE=Barrett Bonden]
No. I expect that the Fulton County Health Department (FCDOH&W hereon) made an initial public statement to the media containing information pertinent to the case which they were legally permitted to release. Following their initial public statement, Mr. Speaker publicly asked the question to which you refer, knowing that the press would relay the question to FCDOH&W. The FCDOH&W has not made an additional public statement which directly answers that specific question.
[/quote]

Not only that, Fulton County has “declined” to answer.

No. What is the “scenario” I have posed, and how is it different?

Ok, so you admit that Fulton County has probably lied about at least 1 thing – their reason for declining to answer the question.

Here’s another question for you: What do you think is the real reason that Fulton County “declined” to answer the question?

To me, the most obvious explanation is that they either know or suspect that Speaker is telling the truth, and they are afraid of falling into what basically amounts to a perjury trap.

Let’s see . . . it’s ok to reveal that a patient was advised not to travel, but it’s not ok to reveal that he was advised he was or wasn’t contagious? Do you really believe that?

Not really.

That’s a more interesting question.

That’s a weak justification for refusing to release their version of events. Because all they have to do is tell the truth and emphasize that they do not remember the exact words that were used. Then there is no danger of contradiction.

More importantly, it’s no justification at all for answering Speaker’s yes or no question.

If Fulton County advised Speaker that he was not contagious, do they not have a moral obligation own up to what they did?