University of New South Wales, High St, Kensington, New South Wales, 2052, Australia.
Alfred Health, 55 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia.
J Bioeth Inq. 2023 Jun;20(2):169-176. doi: 10.1007/s11673-023-10235-w. Epub 2023 Mar 16.
Public protest continued to represent a prominent form of social activism in democratic societies during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Australia, a lack of specific legislation articulating protest rights has meant that, in the context of pandemic restrictions, such events have been treated as illegal mass gatherings. Numerous large protests in major cities have, indeed, stirred significant public debate regarding rights of assembly during COVID-19 outbreaks. The ethics of infringing on protest rights continues to be controversial, with opinion divided as to whether public health goals or human rights should take precedence. This paper applies public health ethical theory to an in-depth analysis of arguments on both sides of the debate. Using the Nuffield Council on Bioethics framework as a backdrop, proportionality and necessity of restrictions are understood as key concepts that are common to both public health and human rights perspectives. The analysis presented here finds a middle-ground between the prevailing arguments on opposing sides and is further able to rationalize the use of protest itself as an important element of a mature public health ethics response to restrictive policy. Thus, this paper aims to influence public health policy and legislation regarding protest rights during public health emergencies.
在 COVID-19 大流行期间,公众抗议继续成为民主社会中一种突出的社会激进主义形式。在澳大利亚,缺乏具体立法来明确规定抗议权利,这意味着在大流行限制的情况下,此类事件被视为非法的大规模集会。事实上,在主要城市举行的众多大型抗议活动确实引发了关于 COVID-19 爆发期间集会权利的重大公众辩论。侵犯抗议权利的伦理道德仍然存在争议,对于公共卫生目标还是人权应该优先考虑,意见分歧。本文将公共卫生伦理理论应用于辩论双方论点的深入分析。利用纳菲尔德生物伦理学理事会的框架作为背景,限制的相称性和必要性被理解为公共卫生和人权观点共有的关键概念。这里提出的分析在对立论点之间找到了一个中间立场,并且能够进一步将抗议本身作为成熟的公共卫生伦理对限制性政策的反应的一个重要元素合理化。因此,本文旨在影响公共卫生紧急情况下有关抗议权利的公共卫生政策和立法。