You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Response
Red herrings, circuit-breakers and ageism in the COVID-19 debate
  1. David R Lawrence1,
  2. John Harris2,3
  1. 1 Centre for Biomedicine Self and Society, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
  2. 2 School of Law, The University of Manchester, Manchester, Manchester, UK
  3. 3 School of Public Health, King's College London, London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr David R Lawrence, Centre for Biomedicine Self and Society, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9YL, UK; d.lawrence{at}ed.ac.uk

Abstract

In their recent paper ‘Why lockdown of the elderly is not ageist and why levelling down equality is wrong’ Savulescu and Cameron attempt to argue the case for subjecting the ‘elderly’ to limits not imposed on other generations. We argue that selective lockdown of the elderly is unnecessary and cruel, as well as discriminatory, and that this group may suffer more than others in similar circumstances. Further, it constitutes an unjustifiable deprivation of liberty.

  • COVID-19
  • elderly and terminally Ill
  • public health ethics

This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.

https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage

https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107115

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it first published. The provenance and peer review statement has been included.

    • Funding This scholarship was supported in part by the Wellcome Trust through grant number 209519/Z/17/Z.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Other content recommended for you