Compulsory medical intervention versus external constraint in pandemic control
Thomas Douglas, Lisa Forsberg, Jonathan Pugh
Abstract
Would compulsory treatment or vaccination for COVID-19 be justified? In England, there would be significant legal barriers to it. However, we offer a conditional ethical argument in favour of allowing compulsory treatment and vaccination, drawing on an ethical comparison with external constraints—such as quarantine, isolation and ‘lockdown’—that have already been authorised to control the pandemic in this jurisdiction. We argue that, if the permissive English approach to external constraints for COVID-19 has been justified, then there is a case for a similarly permissive approach to compulsory medical interventions.
Topics & Concepts
PermissiveArgument (complex analysis)PandemicJurisdictionVaccinationPsychological interventionQuarantineIntervention (counseling)Isolation (microbiology)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Constraint (computer-aided design)Control (management)Law and economicsPolitical scienceLawMedicineSociologyComputer scienceVirologyNursingBiologyMathematicsGeometryDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Internal medicinePathologyMicrobiologyArtificial intelligenceEthics in medical practiceEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints