First, there are lots of ethical considerations about screening. One is to ensure all those who screen positive are assured of access to treatment. In which case, there is an MOU set up with the institution clients are referred to to ensure they get treatment. Screening can increase inequity if due consideration is also not given to how payment for services are addressed. Making a decision to screen migrants at reception desk looks like a coercive arrangement to me as they have no option but to screen. Where is the element of voluntariness in the process. 

So while there are always ethical issues, for the United States it is the law to screen migrants.  See http://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/exams/ti/panel/technical-instructions/panel-physicians/introduction-background.html  As an aside, in the United States, the policy was recently amended in 2016 to remove a few diseases (see  http://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/laws-regs/revisions-medical-screening/medical_examination_aliens.html)

Most of the burden is placed the individual in their home country - migration cannot occur unless the individual is healthy.  

Personally, of the ethical questions raised, it seems to me the most interesting/vexing is the question of the ethics of public health (e.g. sick migrant persons infecting a healthy native population) vs the personal ethics (e.g. screening individuals with the burden of treatment resting on the migrant)

i believe the CDC most often puts settings in the USA first before any other into policies written in your references Mr Donald , i stand to be corrected .

Ethical consideration in migrant screening for the listed disease are basically preventive measure such as i. Proactive measure to ensure immunization depending on the policy of each countries , secondly there are measure to reduce stigmatization in  many counties ,so that screening every one has not been  necessary excepts for certain risky occupations such as Hepatitis for those working in Blood bank or with highly infectious sample.There are balance and checks .Most countries have access to treatment of the infections raised.

With respect to the UK,  an efficient screening for disease in EU immigrants is likely to have (un)foreseen consequences, ie an increase in illegal immigration by those who wish to evade the official checks.  

The ethical issue boils down to whether one thinks the rights of an individual outweigh the interests of the population as a whole.   Currently, individualism (selfishness?) prevails.   The major medical advances in the past depended on overriding individual concerns for the public good.

I think Anthony is correct regarding the individual vs public health but in my opinion one important ethical consideration regarding screening is "intention to treat".  

I think any reasonable person would argue that it would be unethical to screen migrants of any disease if you do not intend to treat the migrants that you discover to be positive for any disease.  

I will say that even during the early 1900's when the US had 1M migrants a year, most of those with exclusionary conditions were apparently treated (according to http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2008/04/mhst1-0804.html about 13% were denied treatment).

ou can read the Declaration of Helsinki The WMA - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects

Hello all. Migrants and refugees are a big problem now .. I think they should be screened at reception point so they can be treated before joining host population.These people should give consent for samples to be collected.

"These people should give consent for samples to be collected."

And what if they don't?

Screening of migrants for infectious diseases which could potentially pose major health and financial burden on host countries is the sovereign right of a state, enabling it to protect its citizens and provide for their welfare. Migration of an individual or a family is often associated social isolation and financial uncertainty, whereby migrants often find themselves overwhelmed with their changed circumstances ( even if migration is a conscious decision). However, adding the burden of screened illness and associated costs to potential migrants can pose a great stress on them. So, maybe, if performed before the migration candidates still have a social network in place that may enable them to cope better. If performed after migration, it must be accompanied with an available treatment plan paid for in most part by the host country, as these migrants will after all be the future citizens of the country of migration.

Hi Dorien, very interesting question. 

I think there is no single answer to your question; but several thoughts might be relevant to concider in  the context of screening for certain contagious diseases during migration. How you think about the issue depends from which spheres of bioethics you are looking at it. From an academic point of view, which primarily focuses on howtheoretical and practical  aspects would affect concideration  such as what is good, right, etc.( i. e, ethical) in the global biomedical context, one might suggest that screening should be done, as it would potentially benefit both the host nation, and also could result in initiation of potential care to a migrant-carrier. If you are looking from the lens of public policy and law, the answer will depend on how legal institutions in the host and exit country define /regulate practices at the border. Finally, clinical ethics concerns how screening could help to improve migrant's care in the case results are positive; if no care provided /or are possible; it is not clinically ethical to screen. Hope this helps. Kind regards, Tatyana

P.S. The Cambridge textbook of bioethics by Singer and Viens is a good source of going deeply into the topic of ethics.