Article Text
Abstract
At this stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, two policy aims are imperative: avoiding the need for a general lockdown of the population, with all its economic, social and health costs, and preventing the healthcare system from being overwhelmed by the unchecked spread of infection. Achieving these two aims requires the consideration of unpalatable measures. Julian Savulescu and James Cameron argue that mandatory isolation of the elderly is justified under these circumstances, as they are at increased risk of becoming severely ill from COVID-19, and are thus likely to put disproportionate strain on limited healthcare resources. However, their arguments for this strategy are contingent on the lack of viable alternatives. We suggest that there is a possible alternative: a mandatory, centralised contact-tracing app. We argue that this strategy is ethically preferable to the selective isolation of the elderly, because it does not target members of a certain group, relying instead on the movements of each individual, and because it avoids the extended isolation of certain members of the society. Although this type of contact-tracing app has its drawbacks, we contend that this measure warrants serious consideration.
- public policy
- coercion
- elderly and terminally ill
- emergency medicine
- 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.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors Both authors contributed to the conception, drafting and revision of the manuscript.
Funding This research was funded in part by the Volkswagen Foundation within the project ‘Bias and Discrimination in Big Data and Algorithmic Processing: Philosophical Assessments, Legal Dimensions, and Technical Solutions.’
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
Other content recommended for you
- Why lockdown of the elderly is not ageist and why levelling down equality is wrong
- Ethics of digital contact tracing wearables
- Without a trace: Why did corona apps fail?
- Lockdown measures in response to COVID-19 in nine sub-Saharan African countries
- Lockdown and levelling down: why Savulescu and Cameron are mistaken about selective isolation of the elderly
- Effectiveness of contact tracing apps for SARS-CoV-2: a rapid systematic review
- Lockdown, public good and equality during COVID-19
- Lessons from countries implementing find, test, trace, isolation and support policies in the rapid response of the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review
- Ethics of selective restriction of liberty in a pandemic
- Use of contact tracing, isolation, and mass testing to control transmission of covid-19 in China