Compulsory medical intervention versus external constraint in pandemic control
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&am...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2020
|
| _version_ | 1826291682502508544 |
|---|---|
| author | Douglas, T Forsberg, L Pugh, J |
| author_facet | Douglas, T Forsberg, L Pugh, J |
| author_sort | Douglas, T |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | 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. 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T03:03:05Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:b19a9df9-6c6a-45e4-8a73-47e38d140b6e |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T03:03:05Z |
| publishDate | 2020 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:b19a9df9-6c6a-45e4-8a73-47e38d140b6e2022-03-27T04:05:27ZCompulsory medical intervention versus external constraint in pandemic controlJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:b19a9df9-6c6a-45e4-8a73-47e38d140b6eEnglishSymplectic ElementsBMJ Publishing Group2020Douglas, TForsberg, LPugh, JWould 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. 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. |
| spellingShingle | Douglas, T Forsberg, L Pugh, J Compulsory medical intervention versus external constraint in pandemic control |
| title | Compulsory medical intervention versus external constraint in pandemic control |
| title_full | Compulsory medical intervention versus external constraint in pandemic control |
| title_fullStr | Compulsory medical intervention versus external constraint in pandemic control |
| title_full_unstemmed | Compulsory medical intervention versus external constraint in pandemic control |
| title_short | Compulsory medical intervention versus external constraint in pandemic control |
| title_sort | compulsory medical intervention versus external constraint in pandemic control |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT douglast compulsorymedicalinterventionversusexternalconstraintinpandemiccontrol AT forsbergl compulsorymedicalinterventionversusexternalconstraintinpandemiccontrol AT pughj compulsorymedicalinterventionversusexternalconstraintinpandemiccontrol |