McGovern Thomas W, Flood Anthony T, Carson Paul J
Fort Wayne Dermatology Consultants, IN, USA.
Department of History, Philosophy and Religious Studies, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA.
Linacre Q. 2020 Nov;87(4):407-424. doi: 10.1177/0024363920942431. Epub 2020 Aug 10.
Because no vaccines or specific treatments are available, governments around the globe have responded to the Coronavirus Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with a variety of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) that include sheltering-in-place orders, social distancing, and school and business closures. While the actual and potential harm due to COVID-19 is far more severe than influenza, the harms due to the NPIs-that have clearly reduced mortality due to COVID-19-are also significant. With government-ordered "lockdowns" across the globe, many arguments for and against returning to normal social and economic activity have been reported, and in fact, Americans are divided about how and when to "open up." These arguments seem to fall into two major categories. Utilitarianism suggests that suspension of civil liberties and constitutional rights is a necessary response, while Libertarianism supports individual decision-making and greatly reduced government mandates. Protesters around the country have been vocal about one or the other points of view. First, we consider in detail the potential harms of severe acute respiratory syndrome virus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) if left unchecked by NPIs. Second, we look at harms due to restricted social and economic activity on human morbidity and mortality. Finally, we offer a framework based on the four pillars of Catholic Social Teaching and the principle of double effect that offers a more humane solution than Utilitarian or Libertarian principles alone.
由于尚无疫苗或特效治疗方法,全球各国政府针对2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行采取了多种非药物干预措施(NPIs),包括就地避难令、社交 distancing 以及学校和企业关闭。虽然COVID-19造成的实际和潜在危害远比流感严重,但NPIs造成的危害也很显著,这些措施显然降低了COVID-19导致的死亡率。随着全球范围内政府下令的“封锁”,已经出现了许多支持和反对恢复正常社会和经济活动的争论,事实上,美国人在如何以及何时“解封”的问题上存在分歧。这些争论似乎主要分为两大类。功利主义认为,暂停公民自由和宪法权利是必要的应对措施,而自由主义则支持个人决策并大幅减少政府指令。全国各地的抗议者都对其中一种或另一种观点表达了强烈意见。首先,我们详细考虑如果NPIs不加以控制,严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2(SARS-CoV-2)可能造成的危害。其次,我们审视因社会和经济活动受限对人类发病率和死亡率造成的危害。最后,我们基于天主教社会教义的四大支柱和双重效应原则提供一个框架,该框架提供了一种比单纯的功利主义或自由主义原则更人道的解决方案。 (注:原文中“social distancing”未翻译完整,可能是“社交距离”的意思 )