There follows a guest post by Dr. David Seedhouse, Honorary Professor of Deliberative Practice at Aston University, who says the underlying problem with the Government’s response to COVID-19 was that ethics was thrown out the window without a second thought, so no one reflected on whether it was justified so egregiously to trample on people’s fundamental rights.
One of the most troubling aspects of the Government’s response to the pandemic was its complete disregard for ethics. It seems not to have occurred to the decision-makers that the instant removal of fundamental civil liberties required – and must always require – the most comprehensive ethical justification.
During the largely self-made crisis, the Government passed sweeping mandates with barely any serious reflection on the impacts on millions of people’s lives, and stubbornly refused to listen to a multitude of far more thoughtful, well-informed alternatives.
Inexcusably, it appears that the main reason the Government and its advisors neglected to consider ethics was brute ignorance – they didn’t think about ethics because they have no idea why it is important. To them ethics is at best a scarcely relevant adjunct to ‘following the science’.
Had they understood ethics – or bothered to ask people who do – they would have been able to approach policymaking in a properly balanced and effective manner.
There are several ways to include ethics in decision-making. Two of these are 1) to apply ethical standards and principles and 2) to deliberate holistically. Both can be undertaken simultaneously.
Ethical standards
A range of carefully considered ethical standards has been developed and fought for in the Western world over the past 70 years and more. Arguably the most fundamental of these is the principle of informed consent to interventions, established in both ethical theory and health care law. It is now regarded as essential that any health care professional – including public health professionals – must fully explain the range of possible interventions available and disclose the reasoning behind any recommendation they make. Anything less is either negligent or coercive.
Holistic deliberation
Beyond the application of fundamental principles, ethics may be seen as a thoughtful, wide-ranging decision-making approach which seeks to balance a variety of factors to reach reasonable conclusions. These conclusions will aways include both evidence and values. Taking one without the other is bound to lead to inadequate choices: the evidence cannot speak for itself and value judgements alone quickly become dogma.
The Government and its advisors failed woefully to take account of either understanding of ethics.
Any robust analysis of a personal or social problem requires the consideration of a range of ideas. However it seems that where public health is concerned, policies are routinely drawn up according to a single imperative – ‘we must reduce disease and therefore save lives’ – but of course this imperative itself requires ethical standards and ethical deliberation because, as we have tragically witnessed, trying to save lives in one way risks lives in other ways.
As soon as you start to think beyond the fear of infection to consider the bigger picture, there is a flood of specific ethical issues.
- Is it ethical to force businesses to close their doors?
- Is it ethical to cause so many people to lose their livelihoods?
- How is it acceptable to override basic human rights with so little public involvement?
- Is it ethical to close schools, particularly when the evidence that this will help control the spread of the virus is unclear? (In 2022 it is now clear that this made little or no difference to ‘stopping the spread’.)
- Do restrictions heighten social inequalities (it is easier to self-isolate in a comfortable home, it is easier to cope if you have a pleasant garden, it is easier to weather financial uncertainty if you have a secure career and savings)?
- Given that governments have borrowed many billions to weather the crisis, and this debt will have to be repaid, is it ethical to cause hardship and suffering to future generations in the interest of existing generations?
There are many other measurable harms that should have been considered. ‘Minimising death’ was only one of many possible rationales. Consequently, the Government’s stubborn failure to reflect in a professional, balanced way caused massive, avoidable damage.
Ethics is ultimately a matter of respecting thoughtful traditions grounded in compassion and human rights, and thinking as deeply as possible about the many effects your choices will have on other people. Ethics is the essence of civilised human co-existence. Over the past two years a handful of people, quite out of their depth, were able to dismiss ethics – along with previous well-documented Government pandemic planning – with what seemed like a mere wave of the hand.
We must ensure that this can never happen again.
Professor David Seedhouse is a member of HART. This article forms part of HART’s developing response to the consultation on the U.K. COVID-19 Public Inquiry.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Given the number of people that still believe the elites charade of electoral democracy will fix all this, it’ll have to go pitch black before people remember light.
Excellent article by Jeffrey Tucker. And Elon Musk was right that it was “a set-up for a switch”. Remember that Biden explained his Vice-Presidential choice years ago by declaring that he was “just a Placeholder for disadvantaged ethnic minorities”. In other words, the plan was for him to stand down all along, to hand the US Presidency to an African-Indian woman, who is also an idiot, without the excuse of senility…
After watching Biden’s performance my conclusion is that he will be disposed of before the election although the replacement may not get more than about 4 – 6 weeks before voting commences. And I am not convinced the drug addicted alchy Kamala Harris will necessarily be the replacement.
“The elected portion of Government has been reduced to nothing but a veneer to be sanded down and changed from time to time, whereas the substance of Government consists of its deep, middle, and shallow layers that operate without any public control at all.”
And this certainly summarises the state of our own so-called “democracy.” We are bit players in nothing but a damned pantomime. Until somebody with a public voice starts to air this fact nothing will change, the shit show will get worse and the shyte will get deeper.
I dunno, there’s talk of him being replaced by the horrendous human/civil rights-abusing woketard psychopath, Gavin Newsom ( who reminds me of Turdeau’s ‘brother from another mother’ ), from plenty Americans on Twitter. I’m not following things closely though. But surely to God it won’t be Halfwit Harris!
Any of those 3 would be fine as it means Trump will likely win. Trump is the only western leader that will get rid of pretend to save the planet policies and that can only be good for us all. If our electricity bills are 3 times higher than Americans, then people will see the absurdity of trying to power the country on wind and sun
Anyone any idea what an ordinary member of the public can do to protect themselves and their family through these times?
If you can reduce, or better still, eliminate any debt. Move out of a city. Look to your resilience for energy supply, food and water. In the USA, buy a gun.
It’s going to get nasty.
On a practical level, invest in gold and silver leases and bonds with Monetary Metals in Arizona. I have no investment myself or vested interest, but the hope of this company is to bring back honest currency by bringing gold and silver back into use with interest paid in the metal itself.
On a deeper level, the main issue is the confusion between efficiency and intelligence that is now culminating in AI and AGI. Solve that one if you can.
It certainly looks like a set-up for a late switch. What I don’t understand is why Jill Biden would allow her husband to be humiliated like that …… she must really hate him.