CURRENT ETHICAL ISSUES

(REACTION PAPER)

PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO COVID – 19 PANDEMICS

The unique coronavirus disease (COVID-19) surprised the world, and as of early April 2020, the virus has claimed over
80,000 lives and infected over a million people across the world. To counteract the pandemic, most governments
imposed social distance, area-wide lockdowns and curfews, and contact-tracing of people under investigation. Some
heads of state-employed 'friendlier' techniques such as infographics, infomercials, and hashtags to encourage people to
take preventive actions. On top of that, other governments have used harsh measures to manage conduct, preying on
people's concerns. As an example, have a look at some of the cases in the Philippines.

Most districts in the country's National Capital Region, which has the most COVID-19 positive instances, have a
designated town crier who warns people with fines of up to Php5,000 and possibly jail time if they do not comply with
prescribed curfew hours while on a record or a mobile audio truck. Local officials in Cainta, Rizal, a province north of
Manila, announce the start of the curfew by blasting the siren from the horror film The Purge (2013). Even the Philippine
president, Rodrigo Duterte, warns the public against disobeying the enhanced community quarantine, saying, "... If there
is trouble or a situation arises where people fight and your lives are on the line, shoot them dead." These scare tactics
are referred described as 'fear appeals' in the psychology literature. Fear-based appeals aren't new. Howard Leventhal, a
pioneer in the field, discusses how fear-arousing communication is frequently used to encourage others to respond and
behave in a certain way. Parents use it to chastise their children, while managers use it to increase employee
productivity. In clinical encounters, doctors use 'fear-based medicine' to persuade patients to take a certain course of
action by threatening them with dire consequences if they don't. Fear-based arguments have also found their way into
public health initiatives. Even though some, such as R.F. While some, such as Kim Witte and Mike Allen, have argued that
such campaigns are ineffectual, others, such as Soames Job, have found that ‘strong terror appeals and high-efficacy
messaging produce the most behavior change.' The jury is still out on whether such campaigns are effective. Fear can be
a powerful motivator. It activates our natural survival instincts. Fear campaigns and scare tactics have been employed in
clear and present public health emergencies like COVID-19, but the ethics of such public health communication
interventions need to be examined. Whether these appeals and strategies are morally acceptable and suitable.

It could be claimed that scare tactics are permissible in times of crisis if they encourage "huge population segments who
are at a moderate risk to adopt risk-reducing activities... to influence those who are at high risk." This could be based on
the premise of doing what best promotes the greatest benefit to the largest number of people. On the other hand, an
argument based on a Kantian, rights-based moral philosophy can argue that such appeals are morally improper if they
violate specific moral and legal rights that individuals believe inviolable. COVID-19 poses a global health hazard that
necessitates joint health measures from various sectors around the world, as well as a strong public health response to
combat the pandemic. Whether this call includes the employment of fear tactics is a moral question that the public
should consider.