Against visitor bans: freedom of association, COVID-19 and the hospital ward
Other content recommended for you
- Should authorship on scientific publications be treated as a right?
- Human rights and bioethics
- Everyday life in a Swedish nursing home during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study with persons 85 to 100 years
- Impact of restricted visitation policies in hospitals on patients, family members and healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol
- Religious circumcision, invasive rites, neutrality and equality: bearing the burdens and consequences of belief
- Does global health governance walk the talk? Gender representation in World Health Assemblies, 1948–2021
- Comparative end-of-life communication and support in hospitalised decedents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective regional cohort study in Ottawa, Canada
- Human rights in pandemics: criminal and punitive approaches to COVID-19
- Evaluation of dedicated COVID-19 hospitals in the pandemic response in Iraq: pandemic preparation within a recovering healthcare infrastructure
- ‘…you just put up with it for the sake of humanity.’: an exploratory qualitative study on causes of stress in palliative care nursing during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany
Jump to comment:
This author agrees with the claim that freedom of association is a basic moral right and that the right to have visitors stems from this freedom. This author also agrees that the discussion around visitor policy should be framed as a discussion about rights infringement. However, this author suggests that the discussion around restriction is best described as a potential conflict between two rights: freedom of association and the right to safety. Accordingly, the rights infringement could go either way.
It is reasonable to claim that people have a moral right to safety (or something like it), and it is reasonable to say that this right should be highly protected in a hospital, where the sick and injured seek treatment. If people do have a right to safety, then it follows that this right would be infringed if hospitals did not take reasonable precautions to reduce hospital-acquired infections. Limiting visitors during COVID-19 should be seen as an example of such a precaution.
To be clear, McTernan recognizes that safety is an important consideration, but she does not state that it is a right. This affects the framing of the issue. Appealing to something as a right makes it substantially harder to act against that which is protected by that right. It is for this reason that McTernan correctly argues that restricting visitation is harder when we appeal to freedom of association.
The issue, then, is one in which patients have potentially two conflicting...Show More