Department of Philosophy, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Makerere University, P. O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda.
Department of Internal medicine, Mulago National Referral Hospital, P. O. Box 7051, Kampala, Uganda.
BMC Med Ethics. 2020 Sep 22;21(1):91. doi: 10.1186/s12910-020-00523-0.
In response to COVID-19 pandemic, the Government of Uganda adopted public health measures to contain its spread in the country. Some of the initial measures included refusal to repatriate citizens studying in China, mandatory institutional quarantine, and social distancing. Despite being a public health emergency, the measures adopted deserve critical appraisal using an ethics and human rights approach. The goal of this paper is to formulate an ethics and human rights criteria for evaluating public health measures and use it to reflect on the ethical propriety of those adopted by the government of Uganda to contain the spread of COVID-19.
We begin by illustrating the value of ethics and human rights considerations for public health measures including during emergencies. We then summarize Uganda's social and economic circumstances and some of the measures adopted to contain the spread of COVID-19. After reviewing some of the ethics and human rights considerations for public health, we reflect upon the ethical propriety of some of Uganda's responses to COVID-19. We use content analysis to identify the measures adopted by the government of Uganda to contain the spread of COVID-19, the ethics and human rights considerations commonly recommended for public health responses and their importance. Our study found that some of the measures adopted violate ethics and human rights principles. We argue that even though some human rights can sometimes be legitimately derogated and limited to meet public health goals during public health emergencies, measures that infringe on human rights should satisfy certain ethics and human rights criteria. Some of these criteria include being effective, strictly necessary, proportionate to the magnitude of the threat, reasonable in the circumstances, equitable, and least restrictive. We reflect on Uganda's initial measures to combat the spread of COVID-19 and argue that many of them fell short of these criteria, and potentially limit their effectiveness.
The ethical legitimacy of public health measures is valuable in itself and for enhancing effectiveness of the measures. Such legitimacy depends on the extent to which they conform to ethics and human rights principles recommended for public health measures.
为应对 COVID-19 大流行,乌干达政府采取了公共卫生措施以控制其在国内的传播。最初采取的一些措施包括拒绝遣返在华留学的公民、强制机构隔离和社会隔离。尽管这是一次公共卫生紧急事件,但所采取的措施应根据道德和人权方法进行严格评估。本文的目的是制定评估公共卫生措施的道德和人权标准,并利用该标准反思乌干达政府为遏制 COVID-19 传播而采取的措施是否符合道德规范。
我们首先说明道德和人权考虑因素对公共卫生措施的重要性,包括在紧急情况下。然后,我们总结了乌干达的社会和经济情况以及为控制 COVID-19 传播而采取的一些措施。在审查了一些公共卫生的道德和人权考虑因素之后,我们反思了乌干达政府对 COVID-19 的一些反应是否符合道德规范。我们使用内容分析法来确定乌干达政府为遏制 COVID-19 传播而采取的措施、为公共卫生应对措施通常推荐的道德和人权考虑因素及其重要性。我们的研究发现,所采取的一些措施违反了道德和人权原则。我们认为,即使在公共卫生紧急情况下,为了实现公共卫生目标,某些人权有时可以合法地减损和限制,但侵犯人权的措施应符合某些道德和人权标准。其中一些标准包括有效性、严格必要性、与威胁程度相称、在具体情况下合理、公平和最小限制。我们反思了乌干达最初采取的一些措施来应对 COVID-19 的传播,并认为其中许多措施不符合这些标准,并且可能限制了它们的效果。
公共卫生措施的道德合法性本身对于增强措施的有效性具有重要意义。这种合法性取决于它们在多大程度上符合为公共卫生措施推荐的道德和人权原则。