Not only has the COVID-19 pandemic challenged science and healthcare systems in many countries, but it also has posed several ethical questions to the international community. One of them is whether it is ethical and moral to infect a healthy individual in case the Phase III research needs it. From the position of professional philosophy (Have, 2018), public health issues are the top priority for the state, the healthcare system, and any physician (CEJA report K – A-93, n.d.). While such a position may be far from appearing ethical for many, the conventional line of bioethics dictates the prioritization of public health in cases such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
From the utilitarian position, if a Phase III study of the coronavirus infection requires the infection of a healthy person with the virus, it must be done for the sake of public health. As existing data demonstrates, specific age groups, for instance, have bigger chances of survival and not suffering from the disease than others (Cohen & Bask, 2020). Additionally, a study group may create unique conditions for the patient to go through the coronavirus with minimum harm. Moreover, as Lo and Katz (2005) explain, in extraordinary times, the autonomy and liberty of a concrete individual “may be overridden for the good of the public” (493). The latter means the possibility of mandatory testing, isolation, and quarantine, all of which have been used during the current pandemic as well as past ones, as well as treatment and vaccination (Lo & Katz, 2005; Pandemic influenza plan, n.d.). Therefore, in circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic, public health becomes the number one priority in comparison to all other scales.
However, there may be people who find this idea contradictory. They may be defenders of ideological and philosophical positions based on religious and political dogmas, who would disagree with the opinion. First, the representatives of liberal and explicitly libertarian paradigms consider such a step a violation of personal freedoms. In this context, infecting an individual against their will for the sake of the community is violence and abuse of power that a state holds over its population (O’Hara et al., 2016). Secondly, speaking of a more conservative view, radical Islamist movements see the COVID-19 pandemic as a punishment to the ones opposing their version of Islam (Basit, 2020). Hence, no jihadist must be intentionally infected, as it would be considered conflicting with the will of God. Ideologies from any pole of the political spectrum comprehend such actions as a violation of either individual freedoms or the will of numen.
Nevertheless, there are some thoughtful counterarguments to these positions. The libertarian view is based on the dogma that an individual’s health does not rely on the public health system. However, even one’s birth rarely occurs without any help from public healthcare services, not to mention overcoming most other diseases. Furthermore, an individual is a part of the community despite their possible denial of such, and the wellbeing of the public is partially their own. Finally, being infected under the control of specialists gives them more guarantees of a successful recovery in comparison to an accidental illness, which is highly possible in a society without a vaccine. As for the religious argument, science does not acknowledge supernatural phenomena. Therefore, while having its basis, the ideological poll of reasons does not appear to be more convincing than the one presented by the conventional bioethics.
To conclude, the coronavirus pandemic made the world face an ethical dilemma to which bioethics had already developed an answer long before COVID-19. Public health dominates the personal one. It may seem inhumane to representatives of specific ideologies. However, it contributes to the collective wellbeing and, hence, the state of health of any individual, which is more critical from the utilitarian perspective. Thus, the conventional ethical system allows physicians to infect healthy patients, especially in the case of consent.
References
Basit, A. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic: An opportunity for terrorist groups? Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses, 12(3), 7 – 12.
CEJA report K – A-93: Ethical considerations in the allocation of organs and other scarce medical resources among patients. (n.d.). 2020, Web.
Cohen, R., & Bask, E. (2020). Vulnerable youth and the COVID-19 pandemic. Pediatrics Perspective, 146(1).
Have, H. (2018). Global education in bioethics. Springer.
Lo, B., & Katz, M. (2005). Clinical decision making during public health emergencies: ethical considerations. Ann Intern. Med, 143(7), 493 – 498.
O’Hara, L., Taylor, J., & Barnes, M. (2016). The extent to which the public health ‘war on obesity’ reflects the ethical values and principles of critical health promotion: a multimedia critical discourse analysis. Health Promotion Journal of Australia 26(3), 246-254.
Pandemic influenza plan. (n.d.). 2020, Web.