See Debatepedia's Global Climate Change Debate Series with the UN Foundation's The People Speak. Press release.
Debate:SARS Screening
From Debatepedia
Should SARS screening be permitted at the airports? Is it a legal act to screen the passengers before the flight? |
This article is based on a Debatabase entry written by Salome Sepashvili. Because this document can be modified by any registered user of this site, its contents should be cited with care.
|
|
[ ]Argument #1 | |
YesIt is important to screen passengers prior to boarding their flights. Doing so will help to reduce the involvement of other countries with this deadly disease. Most of the cases of SARS have begun by travellers returning from other parts of the world with SARS. To date, the majority of cases have been spread through travel rather than as a result of close contact with family members or health care workers. That is why the screening efforts are meant to enforce this important control measure, which is essential to minimise the SARS spreading in other countries. |
NoScreening measures cause inconvenience to the travelers. The procedure takes time, which is so important for travelers. Flight timetables don’t include the time of screening and it might cause the delays. In addition, airborne droplets and touching infected surfaces are the main forms of transmission. So the travelers are still in danger of getting the disease on the airplane. The most likely risk may involve handling contaminated items such as railings, lift buttons, door handles, money, and so on. Screening the passengers only before they board the airplane is not the best solution to avoid the spread of the disease. |
|
[ ]Argument #2 | |
YesScreening passengers for SARS protects people from getting this potentially deadly disease. Travellers would prefer to spend more time at the airports before their departure rather then get SARS. Passengers will feel safer and healthier in the aeroplane knowing that infected people are not in close contact with them. They would avoid spreading SARS to their relatives, business partners and citizens of other countries. The WHO officials have stated that sitting within two to three rows of an infected person on a plane could be considered "close contact". Close Contact includes such things as kissing or embracing, sharing eating or drinking utensils, close conversation (within three feet), physical examination, or any other direct physical contact between people. It is important that authorities carry out screening to avoid close contact with infected persons. |
NoThe screening procedure doesn’t guarantee protection from SARS. The passengers at the airports aren't actually being tested for SARS. Asking verbal questions about possible symptoms is not enough to avoid spreading disease to other passengers. If a passenger is infected and doesn’t describe his or her symptoms, it means that he or she takes the disease on the aeroplane and spreads it to other countries. This would increase the number of cases and bring it to less affected areas. Passengers are still at risk while they are being questioned, since airborne droplets through sneezing and coughing can spread SARS. This can take place while infected passengers are at the airport screening area. In addition, the screening violates the rights of people with no connection to SARS. Since SARS symptoms are the similar to the symptoms of regular cold, the authorities shouldn’t forbid the travellers with the same symptoms to enter the aeroplane; it would be considered as a violation of passengers’ rights. |
|
[ ]Argument #3 | |
YesScreening passengers for SARS is legally permissible. The WHO has the right to request the airport authorities to screen passengers. The constitution of the WHO, which is confirmed by the Charter of the United Nations, includes the mandate to argue for the protection of security of all peoples. Screening measures are an example of actions taken to guarantee people’s security. |
NoScreening for SARS is illegal. The procedures that include the questions about the close contact to an infected person and also examining temperature in a different atmosphere make us think about several private, personal issues. In addition, all these measures give a false sense of security to travellers. The WHO recommended international travellers to postpone travel in the most affected regions. There are only several airports where screening has been required. If the authorities are concerned about the global spread of the disease then the measures should be taken in almost every international airport of the world. For instance, if an infected passenger gets into an aeroplane in Paris and flies to New York City, the disease is already spread. The authorities shouldn’t take strict measures only in the most affected countries. |
|
[ ]Argument #4 | |
YesScreening is profitable for air companies. Screening for SARS is one of the solutions to avoid the decline of the travel industry and the wider economy. Screening measures will be valuable if passengers think that screening make it safe for them to fly again. They won’t hesitate whether to chose to travel by plane or not and they will be willing to purchase the airline tickets. |
NoScreening for SARS will have a serious economic impact. The possibilities and the risk of transmission of SARS on aeroplanes have already caused a sharp decline in airline traffic, especially in the most affected countries. The virus itself caused the slump in flight demands. This has forced airline officials to cancel flights. As fewer passengers travel to areas affected with SARS, the tourism and restaurant industries will be affected as well. We have already seen the decline in the Asian markets and a weakening of the Canadian dollar because of the SARS outbreak. Airport screening will only compound these economic harms. |
References:Motions
In legislation, policy, and the worldSee also on Debatepedia:External links and resources:
Books
| |








]