The COVID-19 Pandemic - How Well Are We Balancing Health, Freedom, and the Economy? (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Evolution of the Right to Health in the Shadow of COVID-19
Health and human rights, 2020
As a graduate student in the early 2000s coming to grips with the meaning and interpretation of the right to health, few publications had as great an impact on me as the Harvard Law School and Francois-Xavier Bagnoud (FXB) Center's 1993 "Interdisciplinary Discussion on Economic and Social Rights and the Right to Health." 1 It captured a discussion between multiple heavy hitters of the field, including Jonathan Mann, then head of the FXB Center, Philip Alston, chair of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Martha Minow, a Harvard Law School professor, Albie Sachs, soon to be a member of South Africa's first Constitutional Court, and Paul Farmer, at that point an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. The discussion transformed my understanding of human rights from laws found in 'black-letter' texts and court judgments, to a far more socially-generated, dynamic model of norms and standards. My light-bulb moment came when Martha Minow quoted Judith Shklar's insight that "civilization advances when what was perceived as misfortune is perceived as injustice." 2 In a seemingly impossible fight to expand the right to health to include universal access to affordable antiretroviral medicines during a global pandemic, Shklar articulated the social and political processes necessary for a radical transformation to take place. That global access to antiretrovirals subsequently shifted so dramatically and rapidly deeply underscored for me, as a junior scholar, that global crises could transform both our conceptions of health rights and justice and material outcomes. It is poignant to revisit that insight in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. As I write in early April 2020, extraordinary lockdowns and isolation measures affecting billions of people worldwide are in place to stop the explosive spread of SARS-CoV-2. The scale and impact of these measures are such that health and human rights scholars will likely be exploring their legitimacy, necessity, and proportionality for years to come. Some on social media are suggesting these steps show that for once policy-makers have placed health above the economy. But the rampant global spread of COVID-19 is likely a result of many governments' reluctance to take the necessary steps at a far earlier stage, including because they did not want to spook markets. Those steps would have included widespread testing, contact tracing, and more adequately preparing health care settings for COVID-19 patients. Health care systems throughout Europe and North America have struggled to mount adequate public health and clinical responses, with facilities overwhelmed, basic testing and protective gear in short supply, and care triaged to those with the best chance of survival. 3 These failures are exposing deep vulnerabilities and inequities within universal health care systems in high-income countries, raising tremendous concerns about what this pandemic will mean for health systems in low and middle-income countries and for the roll-out of universal health coverage (UHC).
The Right to Health in Times of Pandemic
2020
The UK’s response to COVID-19 has been widely criticized by scientists and the public. According to EuroMOMO, a European mortality monitoring initiative, the excess mortality that may be attributable to COVID-19 in England is one of the highest in Europe, second only to Spain. While critiqued from a public health perspective, much less attention is given to the implications of the pandemic outbreak for the right to health as defined under international human rights law and ratified by member states. Using the UK as a case study, we examine critically the extent to which the government’s response to COVID-19 complied with the legal framework of the right to health. We review further key states’ obligations on the right to health and assess its suitability in times of pandemic. Finally, we offer some recommendations for an update of the right to health. This paper adds to the body of literature on the right to health and human rights based-approaches to health.
Junior Bar Law Journal , 2020
The COVID-19 pandemic has created an unprecedented disruption for the entire civilization on a global scale. On 9th of April 2020, UN General Secretary, António Guterres stated the Security Council that the world faces its gravest threat since the founding of the United Nations Organization. While the deadly epidemic has horrendously spread from a single case in China to a global pandemic, the death toll has exceeded one and half million around the world. The economic costs of the pandemic will be larger than the damage caused by the economic crisis in 2008. While the pandemic is rapidly spreading globally, a new discourse on the ‘Right to Health’ has emerged more prominently. Generally, there are two fundamental arguments on ‘Healthcare’. The first one depends on the neo-liberal approach which considers that health-care is not a social right. Therefore, health-care may not be guaranteed as a Human Right. The concept of health-care insurance schemes is mainly based on this neo-liberal argument. The second argument is that health-care, which includes the ‘Right to Healthcare’ and social and other underlying determinants of health, should be protected as a ‘Basic Human Right’. This argument is the basis for the concept of universal free health care. The main objective of this study is to explore the contradiction between the implications of free healthcare and healthcare insurance schemes with a comparative analysis to find out what is the most appropriate healthcare model to protect the Right to Health as a Human Right.
Rebalancing human rights at the time of Covid-19 pandemic
Pravni zapisi, 2020
The year of 2020 will certainly be in all future books on the history of epidemiology and the Covid-19 pandemic will be discussed in them as perhaps the most significant public health challenge since the Spanish flu. But I also hope that it will feature as a new chapter in the books on health and human rights. The suffering of millions of people around the world, the deaths and medical challenges have already presented many lessons to learn from. One of the lessons should be to recognize the right to health as a full-fledged human and constitutional right that deserves a much closer attention whenever annual budgets are drafted and it should be considered as a fundamental human right without which no other rights can be exercised in epidemiological crises and even after that.
The Right to Health and Resource Allocation. Who Gets What and Why in the COVID-19 Pandemic
Global Jurist, 2021
The COVID-19 outbreak has led to a worldwide, substantial increase in the demand for pharmaceuticals, hospital beds, ventilators, and medical supplies. When needs suddenly exceed demand worldwide, resources may quickly become scarce in relation to potential demand, so that strict rationing is the only viable response. Against this backdrop, this paper scrutinizes the rationales for prioriti-zation of scarce resources, and it questions the actual role and reach of the market with regard to resources that are essential to deliver health care, especially in times of severe shortage, such as during a global pandemic.
The Pandemic Collection , 2022
The ethics literature is broadly favourable to governments using their coercive powers to impose mandatory lockdowns and vaccinations in response to dangerous pandemics. The world's governments had established plans for managing the periodic influenza pandemics based on a model or quarantining symptomatic individuals, but in 2020 they transitioned to confining the entire population of their countries for the interim period until vaccines became available, without considering policy options more broadly. This might be justified through a utilitarian appeal to 'the greatest good of the greatest number', but in calculating this, ethicists and governments tend to ignore the potential harms arising from lockdowns and assume that all vaccines are safe and effective for all individuals. Until possible harms are estimated and weighed in the balance against possible benefits in each individual case, mandates cannot be considered.
A BIOETHICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE COVID-19 INFECTIOUS DISEASE PANDEMIC
A Bioethical Perspective on the COVID-19 Pandemic, ACU Saglik Bil Derg 2020; 11(3):365-371, 2020
Infectious diseases are characterised as capable of animal-to-human or human-to-human transmission. They may be diagnosed, treated or prevented and recovery from such diseases is a possibility. Since they are a source of morbidity, disability and mortality in humans, combating infectious diseases is a key priority. When we examine the problem from a medical or scientific historical perspective, it is evident that humankind has been able to achieve great advances in combatting infectious diseases through immunisation. The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, was first identified in December 2019 in China. This virus is the cause of the acute respiratory infective illness termed COVID-19. In a brief period of time, this disease has spread across the globe, becoming a pandemic and creating difficulties for society and the economy. Alongside the need for an understanding of what to do to combat the pandemic, there should co-exist enquiry into how such action should be undertaken: to put it another way, what attitudes and behaviours should come into play. There is a need to investigate the ethical dimension of the problem. In combatting the pandemic, an evidence-based scientific and medical approach should continue, whilst from the bioethical perspective, there should be openness, transparency and realism in the way that developments are shared with the public. Everyone should be treated equally. In situations calling for quarantine and isolation, it is necessary that any sacrifice of personal autonomy be proportionate to the requirements of public health and call for a reasonable level of self-sacrifice; that individuals, hospitals, organisations and countries will act in solidarity and support each other co-operatively; that governments be accountable for the response they give to the requirements of their people and that economic life be supported with reciprocal collaboration and solidarity. The response should preserve human rights and dignity. It is recommended that the pandemic be managed in a way that is humane and pluralist, whilst maintaining attitudes and behaviours that are respectful and responsible towards the environment, the biosphere, biodiversity and future generations.
Covid 19 and its impact on Individual Healthcare Rights Yusuf Thiru
2021
Now that different nations, jurisdictions, and organizations around the world are coercing, or even forcing, their employees to get vaccinated against Covid-19, what are our rights? What are our individual healthcare rights? Under the World Health Organization’s Constitution, the achievement of the appropriate health for an individual is one of the fundamental human rights that also include the right to food, housing, clothing and education. WHO states that the right to the highest attainable standard of health must entail a set of social criteria that promotes the health of every person, which includes the availability of healthcare services and safe living conditions? In the United States, several Acts have been passed and enforced to ensure the attainment of the right to healthcare for the people, regardless of their social, cultural or economic backgrounds. This research will focus on five major rights that have been outstanding as they have helped people access healthcare services after the enactment and enforcement of the relevant statutes.