The Cost of Coronavirus Obligations: Respecting the Letter and Spirit of Lockdown Regulations.

We all now know that the novel coronavirus is anything but a common cold. The pandemic has created many new obligations for all of us, several of which come with serious costs to our quality of life. But in some cases, the guidance and the law are open to a degree of interpretation, leaving us to decide what is the ethical (or unethical but desired) course of action. Because of the high cost of some of the obligations, a conflict of interest can arise between what we want to do and what it is right to do. And so, some people choose to respect only the letter of the law, but not the spirit, or not to respect even the spirit of the guidelines. This paper identifies and describes the new obligations imposed on us all by the pandemic, considers their costs in terms of the good life, and provides an ethical analysis of two personal and two public cases in terms of the letter and spirit of the guidance and legislation.

Return to Status Quo Ante: The Need for Robust and Reversible Pandemic Emergency Measures.

This paper presents a normative analysis of restrictive measures in response to a pandemic emergency. It applies to the context presented by the Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global outbreak of 2019, as well as to future pandemics. First, a Millian-liberal argument justifies lockdown measures in order to protect liberty under pandemic conditions, consistent with commonly accepted principles of public health ethics. Second, a wider argument contextualizes specific issues that attend acting on the justified lockdown for western liberal democratic states, as modeled on discourse and accounted for by Jürgen Habermas. The authors argue that a range of norms are constructed in societies that, justifiably, need to be curtailed for the pandemic. The state has to take on the unusual role of sole guardian of norms under emergency pandemic conditions. Consistently with both the Millian-liberal justification and elements of Habermasian discourse ethics, they argue that that role can only be justified where it includes strategy for how to return political decisionmaking to the status quo ante. This is because emergency conditions are only justified as a means to protecting prepandemic norms. To this end, the authors propose that an emergency power committee is necessary to guarantee that state action during pandemic is aimed at re-establishing the conditions of legitimacy of government action that ecological factors (a virus) have temporarily curtailed.

Achieving Safe, Effective, and Compassionate Quarantine or Isolation of Older Adults With Dementia in Nursing Homes.

Nursing homes are facing the rapid spread of COVID-19 among residents and staff and are at the centre of the public health emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As policy changes and interventions designed to support nursing homes are put into place, there are barriers to implementing a fundamental, highly effective element of infection control, namely the isolation of suspected or confirmed cases. Many nursing home residents have dementia, associated with impairments in memory, language, insight, and judgment that impact their ability to understand and appreciate the necessity of isolation and to voluntarily comply with isolation procedures. While there is a clear ethical and legal basis for the involuntary confinement of people with dementia, the potential for unintended harm with these interventions is high, and there is little guidance for nursing homes on how to isolate safely, while maintaining the human dignity and personhood of the individual with dementia. In this commentary, we discuss strategies for effective, safe, and compassionate isolation care planning, and present a case vignette of a person with dementia who is placed in quarantine on a dementia unit.

COVID-19 and the ethics of quarantine: a lesson from the Eyam plague.

The recent outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is posing many different challenges to local communities, directly affected by the pandemic, and to the global community, trying to find how to respond to this threat in a larger scale. The history of the Eyam Plague, read in light of Ross Upshur's Four Principles for the Justification of Public Health Intervention, and of the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, could provide useful guidance in navigating the complex ethical issues that arise when quarantine measures need to be put in place.

Ethical Challenges in Health Care Policy during COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy.

Since the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, Italy has proven to be one of the countries with the highest coronavirus-linked death rate. To reduce the impact of SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, the Italian Government decision-makers issued a series of law decrees that imposed measures limiting social contacts, stopped non-essential production activities, and restructured public health care in order to privilege assistance to patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Health care services were substantially limited including planned hospitalization and elective surgeries. These substantial measures were criticized due to their impact on individual rights including freedom and autonomy, but were justified by the awareness that hospitals would have been unable to cope with the surge of infected people who needed treatment for COVID-19. The imbalance between the need to guarantee ordinary care and to deal with the pandemic, in a context of limited health resources, raises ethical concerns as well as clinical management issues. The emergency scenario caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in the lockdown phase, led the Government and health care decision-makers to prioritize community safety above the individuals' rights. This new community-centered approach to clinical care has created tension among the practitioners and exposed health workers to malpractice claims. Reducing the morbidity and mortality rates of the COVID-19 pandemic is the priority of every government, but the legitimate question remains whether the policy that supports this measure could be less harmful for the health care system.

Quarantine, isolation and the duty of easy rescue in public health.

We address the issue of whether, why and under what conditions, quarantine and isolation are morally justified, with a particular focus on measures implemented in the developing world. We argue that the benefits of quarantine and isolation justify some level of coercion or compulsion by the state, but that the state should be able to provide the strongest justification possible for implementing such measures. While a constrained form of consequentialism might provide a justification for such public health interventions, we argue that a stronger justification is provided by a principle of State Enforced Easy Rescue: a state may permissibly compel individuals to engage in activities that entail a small cost to them but a large benefit to others, because individuals have a moral duty of easy rescue to engage in those activities. The principle of State Enforced Easy Rescue gives rise to an Obligation Enforcement Requirement: the state should create the conditions such that submitting to coercive or compulsive measures becomes a fundamental moral duty of individuals, i.e. a duty of easy rescue. When the state can create such conditions, it has the strongest justification possible for implementing coercive or compulsive measures, because individuals have a moral duty to temporarily relinquish the rights that such measures would infringe. Our argument has significant implications for how public health emergencies in the developing world should be tackled. Where isolation and quarantine measures are necessary, states or the international community have a moral obligation to provide certain benefits to those quarantined or isolated.

Ethical considerations surrounding the response to Ebola: the Spanish experience.

BACKGROUND: The recent Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak, with 28,646 reported cases and 11,323 deaths, was declared a public health emergency of international interest by the World Health Organisation. In Spain, a single reported case triggered a public health crisis of a markedly media-centred nature. The approach to the first EVD epidemic has given rise to various ethical considerations around the world. We address the most relevant ethical considerations emanating from the management of EVD in Spain. MAIN BODY: Firstly, for reasons of global justice and humanitarian assistance, rich countries have the duty to support poorer countries in building up their core public-health capacities. Secondly, quarantine for high-risk contacts might have been a disproportionate and not properly justified measure, which could have contributed to stigmatising contacts and spreading panic. Thirdly, when the first secondary case was reported in Spain, it is doubtful whether informed consent requirements were strictly complied with when disclosing information concerning the alleged accident potentially causing the contagion. Moreover, this information was used by the Regional Health Minister to blame the patient, evading his responsibility to ensure safe medical procedures for health workers. Finally, the patient received convalescent plasma for compassionate use from a colleague of the first missionary repatriated, who also participated in a research study in Spain, despite having previously been denied the chance of being transferred to Spain to receive treatment. This fact highlights the asymmetry in the relationship between rich and poor countries. SHORT CONCLUSION: The management of this crisis highlighted the technical capacity of the health system and its professionals to respond effectively to public health emergencies caused by emerging diseases. This said, the failures in the protection of the EVD patient's privacy remind us that this aspect has to be borne in mind from the outset in crisis situations. Certain coercive measures, such as quarantine, should only be applied where there is some evidence that the benefit-risk balance could be favourable. Lastly, it is essential that research and interventions targeted at combating the fragility of the health systems in poor countries respond to reasons of global justice.

Kaci Hickox: public health and the politics of fear.

Kaci Hickox was a nurse who worked with persons who were infected with Ebola in West Africa. When she returned to the United States, the governors of New Jersey and Maine intervened to confine her to inpatient quarantine despite the fact that she was asymptomatic and had no serological evidence of infection. She defied the quarantine which resulted in enormous public attention and discussion of quarantine and public fear. This article summarizes the case discussing the history of the case, the government actions, and the final legal rulings.

The Ebola Virus and Human Rights Concerns in Africa.

In the wake of the Ebola virus disease (EVD) that is ravaging parts of Africa certain measures are being taken by governments to prevent the spread of the epidemic within their borders. Some of these measures are drastic and may likely have implications for the fundamental rights of individuals. The EVD outbreaks have brought to the fore again the tension between public health and human rights. This article discusses the origin and mode of transmission of the EVD and then considers the human rights challenges that may arise as a result of states' responses to the disease in Africa.

Legal briefing: coerced treatment and involuntary confinement for contagious disease.

This issue's "Legal Briefing" column covers recent legal developments involving coerced treatment and involuntary confinement for contagious disease. Recent high profile court cases involving measles, tuberculosis, human immunodeficiency virus, and especially Ebola, have thrust this topic back into the bioethics and public spotlights. This has reignited debates over how best to balance individual liberty and public health. For example, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues has officially requested public comments, held open hearings, and published a 90-page report on "ethical considerations and implications" raised by "U.S. public policies that restrict association or movement (such as quarantine)." Broadly related articles have been published in previous issues of The Journal of Clinical Ethics. We categorize recent legal developments on coerced treatment and involuntary confinement into the following six categories: 1. Most Public Health Confinement Is Voluntary 2. Legal Requirements for Involuntary Confinement 3. New State Laws Authorizing Involuntary Confinement 4. Quarantine Must Be as Least Restrictive as Necessary 5. Isolation Is Justified Only as a Last Resort 6. Coerced Treatment after Persistent Noncompliance.

Conflicts of quarantine the case of Jewish immigrants to the Jewish state.

Shaar Haaliya--Israel's Ellis Island during the mass immigration of the 1950s--is a case study that challenges the historian's understanding of the concept of quarantine. It was isolated and fenced off for declared health purposes and was widely referred to as a quarantine, but archival and historiographical documentation suggest that Israeli public health policy did not define it as such. I track the discussion and conflict surrounding Shaar Haaliya's function and perception as a quarantine. This is a story that illuminates the way fear of disease converged with fear of immigration as well as the way defiance of public health institutions took shape in a unique framework of citizenship and during a unique wave of migration.

Lives saved and lost in the first six month of the US COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective cost-benefit analysis.

In the beginning of the COVID-19 US epidemic in March 2020, sweeping lockdowns and other aggressive measures were put in place and retained in many states until end of August of 2020; the ensuing economic downturn has led many to question the wisdom of the early COVID-19 policy measures in the US. This study's objective was to evaluate the cost and benefit of the US COVID-19-mitigating policy intervention during the first six month of the pandemic in terms of COVID-19 mortality potentially averted, versus mortality potentially attributable to the economic downturn. We conducted a synthesis-based retrospective cost-benefit analysis of the full complex of US federal, state, and local COVID-19-mitigating measures, including lockdowns and all other COVID-19-mitigating measures, against the counterfactual scenario involving no public health intervention. We derived parameter estimates from a rapid review and synthesis of recent epidemiologic studies and economic literature on regulation-attributable mortality. According to our estimates, the policy intervention saved 866,350-1,711,150 lives (4,886,214-9,650,886 quality-adjusted life-years), while mortality attributable to the economic downturn was 57,922-245,055 lives (2,093,811-8,858,444 life-years). We conclude that the number of lives saved by the spring-summer lockdowns and other COVID-19-mitigation was greater than the number of lives potentially lost due to the economic downturn. However, the net impact on quality-adjusted life expectancy is ambiguous.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions to limit the transmission of a pandemic virus: the need for complementary programs to address children's diverse needs.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions, including social distancing, quarantine, and isolation, are a potentially attractive means to limit the transmission of a pandemic virus. Many of these interventions are directed at children given children's disproportionate role in amplifying epidemics. The ethics of non-pharmaceutical interventions can be analyzed using Nancy Kass' ethics framework for public health. Such an analysis highlights the limited data supporting these interventions' effectiveness. It also suggests the framework itself needs to be expanded to consider harms other than constraints on liberty and to consider affirmative programs to mitigate these broader harms.

Ethics-driven policy framework for implementation of movement restrictions in pandemics.

In the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, countries across the globe undertook several stringent movement restrictions to prevent the virus spread. In April 2020, around 3.9 billion people in 90 countries were contained in their homes. Discourse on the ethical questions raised by such restrictions while historically rich is absent when it comes to pragmatic policy considerations by the decision-makers. Drawing from the existing literature, we present a unified ethical principles-pragmatic considerations-policy indicators framework flexibly applicable across different countries and contexts to assess the ethical soundness of movement-restricting policies. Our framework consolidates 11 unique but related ethical principles (harm, justifiability, proportionality, least restrictive means, utility efficiency, reciprocity, transparency, relevance, equity, accountability, and cost and feasibility). We mapped each ethical principle to answerable questions or pragmatic considerations to subsequently generate 34 policy indicators. These policy indicators can help policymakers and health practitioners to decide the ethically substantiated initiation of movement restrictions, monitor progress and systematically evaluate the imposed restrictions. As an example, we applied the framework to evaluate the first two phases of the largest lockdown (March-May 2020) implemented nationwide in India for its adherence to ethical principles. The policy indicators revealed ethical lapses in proportionality, utility efficiency and accountability for India's lockdown that should be focused on in subsequent restrictions. The framework possesses value towards ensuring that movement-restrictive public health interventions across different parts of the world in the ongoing pandemic and possible future outbreaks are ethically sound.

Integrity during pandemic times: The case for flexible adamancy.

The Covid-19 pandemic has dominated people's lives since late 2019, for more than nine months now. Healthcare resources and medicine have been completely consumed by the Covid 19 illness globally. This is a particularly difficult time for health systems because of the onerous responsibility to care for large numbers of sick people, protecting populations from contracting the infection by effective quarantine, isolation, and containment measures. In addition to this burden of work, healthcare providers are also overcome by fear of contracting the infection and transmitting it to their loved ones. It is during such difficult times that the integrity of healthcare providers is challenged. In this paper I will describe some challenges that a healthcare provider in a typical low resource setting faces during this pandemic time, and will propose the idea of "flexible adamancy" to address these challenges to the health system's integrity.