Freedom, diseases, and public health restrictions

Journal article

The debate around lockdowns as a response to the recent pandemic is typically framed in terms of a tension between freedom and health. However, on some views, protection of health or reduction of virus-related risks can also contribute to freedom. Therefore, there might be no tension between freedom and health in public health restrictions. I argue that such views fail to appreciate the different understandings of freedom that are involved in the trade-off between freedom and health. Grasping these distinctions would allow to appreciate why different people give more weight to different aspects of limitations of freedom, including whether certain options are made simply risky or impossible, whether limitations of freedom are posed intentionally or happen accidentally, whether risks are beyond a threshold of acceptability, and who gets to decide that. I provide a conceptual analysis of the relationship between different types of freedom, public health policies, viruses and diseases. As I argue, identifying what freedom-based reasons count for and against different types of public health restrictions requires distinguishing between viruses and diseases, between lockdowns and other types of restrictive policies, and between risks posed by viruses and threats of penalties involved by restrictive policies.

Authors: Giubilini, A

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Wiley
• Journal: Bioethics
• Volume: 37
• Issue: 9
• Pages: 886-896
• Publication date: 2023-08-28
• Acceptance date: 2023-07-28
• DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13217
• EISSN: 1467-8519
• ISSN: 0269-9702
• Language: English
• Keywords: health; freedom; public health; COVID‐19; pandemic; lockdown; FFR