The Lockdown being “Ethically Justified”

A Term Paper
Presented to
The College of Arts and Sciences
Malayan Colleges Mindanao
Davao City

Fiona Jhoana Clacyl A. Butay

Bachelor of Multimedia Arts

February 2022
I. INTRODUCTION
 The initial response to the massive health risks posed by COVID-19 in many regions of
the world has been the implementation of lockdown initiatives. The significance of ethical
debates over the appropriateness and scope of such measures cannot be overstated. The use of
the lockdown raises several ethical issues. Countless people seem to believe that the lockdown is
an unjustified restriction on personal liberty, while others see it as an essential component of
pandemic control. Alex Broadbent’s article (2020) discussed that quarantine has direct
consequences for people trying to survive, as well as their dependents. Individuals will just not
strictly follow a lockdown unless they can eat, and there is no reason, practical or moral, for
them to do so where there are fewer prompt ramifications. The economic recession during the
pandemic has resulted in an increase in the number of people living below the poverty line.
However, there still are times when infectious diseases pose a threat to population densities,
necessitating a broader public health strategy. Lockdown is only one component of
communicable disease prevention and control. That is unlikely to be successful on its own, but it
is far from the only method of controlling an outbreak.

II. BODY

In Savulescu and Cameron’s article (2020) on quarantine of the seniors and why this is
not ageist, both argue that an appropriate approach may be to lift the general lockdown but
implement selective isolation of the elderly. Their primary argument is that selective isolation of
the elderly is preferable to enforcing lockdown on all members of the population. The goal of
lockdown, which restricts movement, tasks and interactions, is to cut down on the number of
COVID-19 death tolls while also preventing the healthcare system from becoming overburdened.
The morally relevant reason, in this case, is that the elderly and other communities who might
have been exposed to COVID-19 are much more prone to experience effects from COVID-19
and, as a result, are more probable to overwhelm the health care system if they obtain COVID-
19. Although this is discrimination, they argue that this is roughly proportional because it
benefits both the elderly and the general public. According to Alex Broadbent (2020), there are
complex challenges in determining when regulations are within and between rational. For
example, putting aside all of the complexities of the preceding issue, it is difficult to assess
whether we can justify that greatly restricting the capabilities of younger people to help older
people, provided that young people pose a hazard, instead of assurance, of transferring COVID-
19.

The justification for lockdown and quarantine laws stems from a general moral obligation
to avoid causing harm to infect others if possible. The majority of democracies have public
health laws that allow for quarantine. According to an article about COVID-19 and justice,
although lockdown is a violation of civil liberties, it can be justified in general when several
objectives are fulfilled. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in lockdowns, restrictions on
liberties, the debate over the right to refuse medical attention, and numerous other changes in
people's everyday behavior. The justice issues it raises are varied and profound, and they will
occupy our attention for a certain period proposing a proper solution that forces us to reconsider
what the liberal commitment to the inviolability of each person implies (McMillan, 2020).
According to Toronto Public Health, only 22 orders for mandatory detention were issued. It's
indeed worth noting that approximately 30,000 people were quarantined at a certain point during
the Canadian SARS outbreak in the Greater Toronto area. Believing that public health officials
should use the least restrictive measures proportionate to the goal of disease control. This would
imply that quarantine should be made voluntary before the more restrictive measures and
prohibitions, such as mandatory orders or surveillance devices, such as household camera
systems, wristbands, or confinement, are taken into account.

III. CONCLUSION

Suggested remedial action forces us to reconsider what the liberal commitment to the
physical integrity of each person entails. In the fight against infectious diseases, the lockdown is
a blunt instrument. However, in some cases, it is one of the only options for dealing with an
infectious disease threat. This pandemic has repeatedly demonstrated that opportunity can be
found amid a crisis. Being the first pandemic to emerge in an increasingly digitalized and
interconnected world. To generate a detailed map of all virus routes as alternatives in a variety of
social organizations and associations. It's indeed critical to enhancing our understanding of this
complex interaction in order to develop focused containment approaches. According to the
OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), based on empirical evidence and big data-
driven containment measures are a feasible alternative. This may include actions to detect cases
early on and trace an infected person's interactions, as well as the confinement of individuals
affected. With this strategy, COVID-19 solutions do not have to show up inconsequential, based
on wild speculation, or require a leap of faith. These responsibilities are indeed a means of giving
weight to society considerations without devolving into full-fledged utilitarianism whilst still
upholding people's privileges and immunities. The COVID-19 pandemic is driving ethical
concern in uncharted territory, many of which revolve around approaching ethical guidelines
with a stronger focus on fairness and pertaining principles of ethics.

IV. REFERENCE:
Admin. (2020, June 18). The ethics of Lockdown: Communication, Consequences, and the
separateness of persons. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. Retrieved February 2, 2022, from
https://kiej.georgetown.edu/ethics-of-lockdown-special-issue/

Broadbent, A. (2020, April 13). Lockdown is wrong for Africa. The Mail & Guardian.
Retrieved February 2, 2022, from https://mg.co.za/article/2020-04-08-is-lockdown-wrong-for-
africa/

Covid-19 and Justice - Journal of Medical Ethics. (n.d.). Retrieved February 2, 2022, from
https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/46/10/639.full.pdf

Flattening the COVID-19 peak: Containment and mitigation policies. OECD. (n.d.). Retrieved
February 2, 2022, from https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/flattening-the-covid-
19-peak-containment-and-mitigation-policies-e96a4226/

S;, H. J. H. (n.d.). Is there a moral obligation not to infect others? BMJ (Clinical research ed.).
Retrieved February 2, 2022, from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7488907/

SARS: A local public health perspective. (n.d.). Retrieved February 2, 2022, from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barbara-Yaffe/publication/8880854_SARS_A_local_public
_health_perspective/links/54f614c60cf2ca5efefdc539/SARS-A-local-public-health-
perspective.pdf

Savulescu, J., & Cameron, J. (2020). Why lockdown of the elderly is not ageist and why
levelling down equality is wrong. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(11), 717–721.
https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106336