News Item Second Look – Ethical Dilemmas Presented By COVID-19
Lila Gaudrault
The University of New England
IHS 310: Ethics for Interprofessional Practice
Professor Eryn Neptune
March 8th, 2022
News Item Second Look – Ethical Dilemmas Presented By COVID-19
In the early months of 2020, when Covid began its rapid spread around the globe, life as we knew it essentially ceased to exist. With little knowledge of the virus and its effects on different populations, governments imposed lockdowns, businesses shut their doors, and schools transitioned to online learning. Today, nearly two years after the Coronavirus first surged in our country, many aspects of life have yet to return to normal. While the number of new cases and hospitalizations have decreased in recent weeks, the pandemic is far from finished, with over 52,000 patients hospitalized in the United States alone, and 10,000 of them in the ICU (Linnane, 2022). Yet the impacts of the Coronavirus pandemic extend far beyond the visible, physical effects of respiratory distress, fever, and sore throats. Instead, lockdowns–a direct effect of the pandemic– has had detrimental consequences on our nation’s children, ranging from increased mental health disorders and suicide attempts to poor academic performance and school violence (Leonhardt, 2022). By now, after months of research and the development of a vaccine, we have enough information to know that COVID-19 heavily affects elderly populations, immunocompromised individuals, and, now, the unvaccinated. Rarely do children experience severe cases of COVID. This is where the ethical dilemma comes into play: Do we continue to allow the suffering of our nation’s children to protect COVID-susceptible populations, including the unvaccinated? Looking at this issue through the lens of various ethical concepts and principles allows one to gain a better grasp on all aspects of the problem, and ultimately, find a solution that allows for both protection and normalcy.
The ethical theory of utilitarianism argues that, when faced with a dilemma, the best decision is the one that allows for “the greatest good for the greatest number of people” (Spike & Lunstroth, 2016). In this theory, the ultimate goal is to minimize suffering and increase overall happiness within a population. When put in the context of the Coronavirus pandemic, utilitarianism ethicists would seek a solution that allows for the least number of individuals to suffer or face trials. This becomes difficult to put into practice because, while the number of hospitalizations and deaths are objective, it is challenging to truly quantify the extent of mental health implications on children or academic failure as a result of the pandemic. How can we truly know which option– reopening society with no restrictions or implementing lockdowns to protect vulnerable populations– actually decreases suffering? Prominent utilitarianism ethicist Peter Singer argues that we must come up with a “common unit” to measure overall wellbeing, and make our decisions from there (Buck, 2020). Otherwise, there is no way to clearly compare the number of lives saved from Covid to the number of children’s futures lost from lockdowns.
Another principle theory in ethics, deontology, argues for the implementation of unchanging moral laws and guiding truths that are applied in every decision (Spike & Lunstroth, 2016). With this theory applied to the current Covid-19 dilemma, one could expect to see a set of rigid, unbending ideas that govern how we go about reopening society. For example, commonly practiced deontological principles such as respect for elders and refraining from killing could be interpreted as promoting universal vaccination requirements, mask-wearing, and even lockdowns. It could also involve certain unchanging benchmarks to determine when and how to reopen society. For instance, a 7-day average positivity rate of less than 1% in a community, or vaccination rate of greater than 80% could merit a lifting of restrictions. While these benchmarks may be implemented differently across countries, the main idea of deontology is the use of unchanging, universal principles to guide decisions.
It is also important to look at alternative, or less-developed ethical theories (Spike & Lunstroth, 2016), when considering this dilemma. Of particular interest are casuistry and feminist ethics. First, casuistry, or the comparison of new cases to influential ones in history, provides a framework to view the current situation through the lens of past, similar issues. While most would agree that the world has never seen a pandemic nearly as widespread as the current one, there have been devastating outbreaks throughout history, including the Black Death, H1N1 virus of 1918, and H1N1 virus of 2009. Though there have been significant technological developments since many of these pandemics, we can still draw wisdom from their handling of resuming normal activities while still protecting vulnerable populations. A second alternative ethical theory, feminist theory, involves looking at ethical dilemmas with special consideration given to underrepresented and disadvantaged groups, whether they be racial minorities, financially insecure, or elderly individuals (Spike & Lunstroth, 2016). This theory emphasizes the importance of compassion and kindness, and seeks to lessen the suffering of vulnerable people. In the context of the Coronavirus, feminist theory would look at how the disease impacts marginalized individuals. On one hand, some minorities or economically disadvantaged people may not have adequate access to high quality healthcare, necessitating the implementation of restrictions on gatherings to ensure that they don’t contract the virus. Yet on the other hand, one must consider that these children are the ones who suffer most from closed schools or limited social opportunities. Children from financially insecure families may have little to no internet access at home, or rely on their school to provide them with meals. It becomes challenging because, while these individuals may suffer the most from the virus itself, they are also the most vulnerable to the consequences of lockdowns.
As Covid-related restrictions continue to be lifted, it is critical that we, as a society, exercise ethical principles as we reintegrate into our communities. These include benefice, or acting to benefit one another, fidelity, or faithfulness, and veracity, or truthfulness. Practicing these principles in light of the pandemic may look like wearing a mask around vulnerable individuals, canceling plans if one feels sick, or getting vaccinated. Yet another principle, autonomy, or the freedom to make choices for oneself, is also critical. One should never be forced to receive a vaccine or remain in their homes against their will. If we take care to protect ourselves and each other, while preserving our freedom and regaining some sense of normalcy, we can promote the wellbeing of both the Covid-vulnerable and our suffering children.
Having considered all of these ethical theories and principles, I believe that the best course of action is to lift restrictions on children’s lives while encouraging all to remain vigilant and careful. We know so much more about the Coronavirus today than we did two years ago, and it is clear that we can safely gather and conduct our lives as normal without putting individuals at high risk, or, as some would claim, “killing Grandma.” Having worked at a daycare throughout the pandemic, I have seen firsthand how closing a school for days and weeks at a time due to a single Covid case has impacted already strained families and children. It is truly time to open schools for good, to encourage playdates and large events for children. They have suffered enough for the sake of adults.
The upbringing of today’s children has been called “no way to grow up” (Leonhardt, 2022). Yet as can be seen through the heart wrenching images and videos plastered in the media, the physical suffering brought about by the virus is certainly no way to die. In reopening society, we don’t have to make a choice between the two. Instead, through the practice of ethical principles, and with consideration given to all individuals, we can safely conduct life as normal while protecting society’s more vulnerable members.
