Introduction
The Australian government has taken various actions to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the government’s actions was restricting inbound travel to reduce the rate of infection caused by the virus (McBryde et al., 2020). The two theories that can be used to analyze this action are consequentialism and the rights approach. From a consequentialist point of view, the government’s action is morally right because it results in more benefits than harm (Chang et al., 2020). The move is likely to protect its citizens from being infected. On the other hand, from the rights approach point of view, the government’s action protects the rights of Australians and people living within its borders. For example, the action ensures that the right to good health is protected. Therefore, consequentialism is more clear than the rights approach when comparing the two theories. With consequentialism, a moral action is determined by looking at the benefits its offers over the harm.
The Application of Ethical Theories to Analyze Actions
COVID-19 pandemic is taking a toll on the world, causing illnesses, deaths and economic despair. Due to a surge in COVID-19 infections, the Australian government has recently increased its restrictions (McBryde et al., 2020). For example, the government has restricted inbound travel into the country except for its citizens, immigrants and people vaccinated with an approved vaccine. The imposed restrictions positively and negatively impact individuals and business organizations. The positive impact is that it reduces the spread of the COVID-19 virus. This is likely to reduce the infection rate, crowding of its healthcare, and government spending. On the other hand, the negative impact is based on tourism due to a decline in tourists visiting the country. As a result, the action by the Australian government can be discussed based on consequentialism theory and rights approach.
Application of the Ethical Models
Consequentialism
The consequentialism approach majors on the outcome of an action to determine whether an action is right or wrong. The restriction on inbound travel has more benefits to the country compared to harm. With an increase in COVID-19 infection, the desired outcome by the Australian government is to reduce the rate of infection (Chang et al., 2020). One of the ways to achieve this is by restricting movement. As a result, restriction on inbound movement into the country is likely to prevent the importation of the COVID-19 virus from other countries. More people stand to benefit from this action than those who might be impacted negatively. For example, the Australian residents are more likely to benefit from the government’s action because of the reduced infection rate. Therefore, the government’s restriction on inbound movement is right because it helps reduce the rate of infection.
The action by the government is beneficial to the healthcare sector because it reduces the rate of infected patients. According to consequentialism theory, an action is morally right if it brings more benefit than harm (Ellis, 2019). The restriction prevents individuals who are not vaccinated with a valid vaccine from entering the country. This action decreases the likelihood of COVID transmission from infected to uninfected residents. As COVID infections decline, the number of infected patients declines as well. Based on this, individuals infected with COVID-19 can receive specialized health care. However, without the restriction, the patient population would grow at a breakneck pace, and hospitals would be overwhelmed. This reduces the quality of care and attention to COVID-infected patients, resulting in a higher death rate. Thus, the Australian government’s actions can be justified using the consequentialism approach.
In addition, the Australian government’s action is morally right because its merits are more than demerits. With a decline in COVID-19 infections, the government can lift measures such as curfews, a ban on public gatherings, and restrictions on internal travel (McBryde et al., 2020). This is an indication that the Australian can resume their normal operations. For example, residents can move within the country without any restriction. This would not be possible if there were an increase in the number of infections. Rather than lifting the measures, the government would have placed more measures to contain the disease by reducing the spread. However, the action reduces the number of tourists coming into the country, affecting firms operating in the tourism sector. Therefore, comparing the benefits of the action and disadvantages, there are more benefits, and Australians stand to benefit.
The Rights Approach
Despite the Australian government infringing the right of other people to move freely, the action is aimed at protecting the life of its people. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, an individual has a right to enter any country as long as they meet requirements such as a passport. According to the right approach, individuals should not use their right to movement to risk other people’s lives (Ewin, 2019). For example, if an unvaccinated and infected individual is allowed into the country, they are more likely to infect others. COVID-19 virus is dangerous because it can lead to respiratory problems, heart problems and even death. This indicates that allowing people to move freely because it is their right exposes others to the disease. As a result, the action of the Australian government is justified because it aims to protect its citizens from being infected.
Australians have a right to obtain quality health from existing healthcare facilities. The Australian government’s action aims to ensure that its citizens have access to quality healthcare (Desborough et al., 2020). It is responsible for providing citizens with essential services such as health care, law enforcement, and national security. The public has a strong interest in seeing that public funds and assets and the resources are used to meet their needs. Restricting inbound travel to reduce the infection rate is intended to ensure that the right to good health is assured. With a high number of infected people in the country, it would be impossible for the citizens to access quality healthcare services. Thus, the rights approach supports the government’s action because it assures Australians the right to good health.
The government has the authority to impose restrictions on people’s movements. However, this action can jeopardize the rights of those who oppose the restrictions since they are likely to suffer the consequences. As a result, the action retains an additional layer of complexity due to its positive and negative effects (Carr, 2020). People who oppose restrictions remain susceptible to Covid-19 infections and thus risk transmitting it to others, thereby jeopardizing their right to health. For example, individuals working in the tourist sector are likely to oppose the decision by the government because it affects their income. While the government is acting to protect the health of its people, others complain that the decision affects their main source of livelihood.
On the contrary, rights must be prioritized due to their significance on the existence of humanity. It must be determined which rights are more valuable and should be prioritized. In this case, there are two primary conflicting rights: the right to health and the right to freedom of movement (Zolka et al., 2021). For example, there is some debate over the relative merits of these two rights, and some people value freedom over a life devoid of liberty and good health. This further complicates the situation because some people would choose freedom over good health. On the other hand, there are some who would choose good health over liberty. Therefore, the morality of actions cannot be determined adequately based on the rights approach.
Conclusion
The consequentialism theory and rights approach plays an integral role in analyzing the government’s action to restrict inbound travel. The consequentialism theory supports the decision because it has more benefits than harm. For example, restricting the movement of unvaccinated individuals into the country reduces the spread of COVID-19. This helps prevent a surge of infected patients in the existing healthcare facilities. It is also beneficial because it enables the government to lift some of the measures set to fight the spread of the virus. In addition, the rights approach supports the decision of the government actions to restrict movement to protect its people. In this case, the right to good health was prioritized over the right to free movement. However, the people who oppose restrictions may prefer the right to liberty over good health.
References
Carr, A. (2020). COVID-19, indigenous peoples and tourism: A view from New Zealand. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 491-502.
Chang, S. L., Harding, N., Zachreson, C., Cliff, O. M., & Prokopenko, M. (2020). Modelling transmission and control of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. Nature Communications, 11(1), 1-13.
Desborough, J., Hall Dykgraaf, S., de Coca, L., Davis, S., Roberts, L., Kelaher, C., & Kidd, M. (2020). Australia’s national COVID-19 primary care response. Med J Aust, 213(3), 104-106.
Ellis, P. (2019). Ethical concepts: the meaning of consequentialism. Journal of Kidney Care, 4(5), 274-276.
Ewin, R. E. (2019). Virtues and rights: The moral philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Routledge.
McBryde, E. S., Meehan, M. T., Adegboye, O. A., Adekunle, A. I., Caldwell, J. M., Pak, A. Rojas, D. P., Williams, B.M., & Trauer, J. M. (2020). Role of modelling in COVID-19 policy development. Paediatric respiratory reviews, 35, 57-60.
Zolka, V., Tsarenko, O., Kushnir, I., Tsarenko, S., & Havrik, R. (2021). The impact of the pandemic COVID-19 on the human right to freedom of movement. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 10(1), 376-376.