Consumption (also on a plane)

So yesterday, nine people filed a suit against a tuberculosis patient... for exposing his germs to them.
Andrew Speaker of Atlanta, Georgia flew overseas (to Italy) to be married, knowing that he was infected with TB - and against his doctor's advice. I can imagine that he was more afraid of his wife-to-be than public censure. In any case, he had been diagnosed with a strain called MDR-TB, that is, multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.
I am aware of the high cost of flying (particularly right now). I know that many people, when they become ill, will simply do what they can to make the flight and therefore not lose up to thousands of dollars. While this may not be the wisest course to be taken, in terms of the health of the sick person and those surrounding him or her, it's done every day.
Mr. Speaker, according to his blog, was informed that he was "...not a threat to anyone and not contagious", and decided, since he felt well enough, to continue with the wedding plans. However, upon his arrival in Italy, he received word that his particular strain of TB was that known as XDR-TB, or extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. Oops.
"U.S. Public Health Officials" attempted to persuade Mr. Speaker to remain in Italy and receive treatment there, so as to limit further contagion. Too bad they didn't offer to pay for it, but Mr. Speaker cites his reasoning for returning to North America as a wish to receive the best treatment. He was allowed to cross from Canada to New York, and then he says, tricked into a quarantine. He went to a New York hospital, asked to stop by for testing, when armed guards were posted outside his door.
At which point I might well have gone mental.
They found out that he doesn't have the XDR-TB strain, just the less-dangerous MDR-TB. The CDC says they would not have changed their advice on travel plans. I cannot find what, exactly, that advice was, only that they claim to have told him not that he wasn't contagious, but that he wasn't very contagious. I'm going to assume it was "stay home".

Well.

• The U.S. government has a great love of drama and overreaction to small situations.
• I wouldn't want my child exposed to a disease that, since I know very little about it, I consider to be quite fearful and dangerous - although, as I understand it, there are generally cures now.
• Mr. Speaker maybe didn't make the best decision of his life, but I think I can understand why. What do you do when you don't know what, exactly, to do? My first reaction to any crisis is to be in a place where I am extraordinarily comfortable - when our apartments tried to kill us last week with epoxy-resin fumes, I wanted to stay home, even thought it was really not a brilliant idea. So I suppose that he wanted to be in a place where he felt slightly more in control. He did say he hadn't the funds for a private plane. I wonder if my health insurance works overseas?
• The nine people who are suing him for exposure - from what I can tell, only one of them tested positive, and it isn't even clear that it is Mr. Speaker's fault. I'm gonna sue - I know, G-d! - for providing the means to ice, and therefore causing me to fall down my stairs.

My sarcasm is now passing the bounds of good taste, so I'll leave it at that. I am disgusted with everyone involved for making useless spectacles of themselves and think that they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.