Human Rights in a pandemic

[CharonY]

In this thread I would like to explore the legal and ethical basis of pandemic (or public health in general) related restrictions of human rights. 

I will focus on human rights as outlined by the universal declaration of human rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx.

Specifically Article 12 of the covenant is important here:

Quote

Article 12

1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:

(a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child;

(b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;

(c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases;

(d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.

In a specific comment the office of the high commissioner for human rights outlined that: 

Quote

3. The right to health is closely related to and dependent upon the realization of
other human rights, as contained in the International Bill of Rights, including the
rights to food, housing, work, education, human dignity, life, non-discrimination,
equality, the prohibition against torture, privacy, access to information, and the
freedoms of association, assembly and movement. These and other rights and
freedoms address integral components of the right to health. 

In other words, they see a close connection between these rights. Yet certain health measures might curb rights. The basic framework to realize health within a human rights framework is therefore that any  restrictions need to be implemented in a way that maximizes the outcome but must also be lawful, proportionate, necessary and applied fairly.

These limitations have been outlined in the Siracusa Principles https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/1984/07/Siracusa-principles-ICCPR-legal-submission-1985-eng.pdf

So independent of the actual implementation in the last years, there are guiding principles for the lawful implementation of public health measures. As such implementing public health measures, including isolation or other mandates are not necessary at odds with human rights principles. In fact, I would argue it is dangerous to frame it that way as it would necessarily decrease compliance and delegitimize the measures themselves.

That being said, it can be argued that many implementations might have been insufficient in following these guidelines. Fore example, self-isolation can result in the loss of job. While many countries have provided some worker benefits, that may be insufficient. Likewise, it can be argued that many of these measures are not applied equally. Low-income folks have a harder time following many measures as they are strapped for means, while higher income folks or folks with jobs that allow remote work are barely affected.

This is not only exclusively a human rights argument, but also one of public health, as folks with economic constraints are often less likely to get tested in the first place, in fear of losing their jobs.

We can explore the intersection of each of these rights with a view on public health and discuss their implementation (and potential violation) of a given right.

For example: Quarantines and lockdowns are obviously a limitation of the the freedom of movement. In order to ensure lawful implementation several aspects must be safeguarded. These include:

- only implement mandatory restrictions when scientifically warranted and only when individual health and safety can be safeguarded. This includes ensuring that folks can continue to secure their livelihood, have access to necessities and have access to other necessary services (e.g. support for disabled). Fundamentally speaking, mostly voluntary measures in conjunction with education, widespread screening and contact tracing are in fact likely to work better in most areas as it will increase cooperation. Erosion of public trust on the other hand is likely to result in more folks trying to evade these measures.

[zapatos]

56 minutes ago, CharonY said:

- only implement mandatory restrictions when scientifically warranted and only when individual health and safety can be safeguarded. This includes ensuring that folks can continue to secure their livelihood, have access to necessities and have access to other necessary services (e.g. support for disabled).

Great OP CharonY!

It is my opinion that for the most part, in most countries, governmental response during this pandemic has been adequate as outlined above.

It is a fine balancing act trying to weigh certain rights against other (freedom of movement vs. right to be healthy) and any of numerous scenarios on which way we tilted would have been fine. There is no 'perfect' response to a pandemic. 

While someone who knows they are infected and purposely attempts to infect others as we've seen a few do with coughing on others in public deserves to be restrained, the thought of jailing people because they flaunt regulations by taking a walk around the neighborhood or other minor violations, seems extreme. We cannot control all risk and that should not be our goal.

[iNow]

We don't have a human right to drive drunk or to avoid stopping at red lights. All rights have reasonable restrictions, and a request to wear a mask, avoid entry if lacking vaccination, or stay home for a bit if sick isn't the tyrannical oppression and removal of freedom that some people seem to think it is.

That said, some regulations and rules CAN go too far. Where that threshold exists is where the debate is best focused, IMO.

"Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of your neighbors nose."

[MigL]

People are incarcerated all the time for being a danger to the rest of society.
They lose their right to freedom.
It may be an unpopular opinion, but rights are not inherent, you are not born with them; they are granted by the society you live in.
( just ask a woman in Saudi Arabia, or a Uyghur in China )

At the beginning of the pandemic, If I were contageous, I could have killed more people in a nursing home than with a fuly loaded Glock 17, because with a virus, you don't run out of ammunition. So what is the difference.

[CharonY]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

People are incarcerated all the time for being a danger to the rest of society.
They lose their right to freedom.
It may be an unpopular opinion, but rights are not inherent, you are not born with them; they are granted by the society you live in.
( just ask a woman in Saudi Arabia, or a Uyghur in China )

At the beginning of the pandemic, If I were contageous, I could have killed more people in a nursing home than with a fuly loaded Glock 17, because with a virus, you don't run out of ammunition. So what is the difference.

There is a big difference in these scenario as shooting folks is obviously a crime and there are laws that deal with it. In case of infections, if you do it willingly, there is likely a ground for prosecution, but again, it would be after the fact. In a public health scenario you apply rules for everyone and as such must be carefully calibrated. It is, for example reasonable and lawful to request negative tests and mandate masks and vaccinations in long-term care facilities. Stay-at-home orders or isolation mandates are also largely in line with human rights consideration with certain provisions (i.e. one must be allowed to have access to food water and necessary medication). 

I also prefer to think of humans rights not as something granted, but something that is inherent, but with certain limitations within a society. The difference here is that in the latter it means that reduction of freedoms have to be justified, whereas there is no stipulation in the former model.

[MigL]

You can be charged and convicted of negligence or involuntary manslaughter even if you do it unwillingly.
If you chose to ignore quarantine rules, vaccinations, or even mask mandates, are you not being negligent ?

This is a common theme I find myself coming back to ...
Why do your rights ( not to be vaccinated ) supersede my rights ( to not get sick from you ) ?

[TheVat]

I would see a practical line of demarcation being: do you come into contact with other people who have no knowledge of your vaccination status.  If so, then you should be required to vax.  If you work at home and only hang out with people you know and who have full awareness and acceptance of your position on vaccination, then you can do what you want.  Otherwise, not vaxxing is somewhat akin to getting out on a public road after dark without headlights.  Your personal risk becomes other people's risk.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

You can be charged and convicted of negligence or involuntary manslaughter even if you do it unwillingly.
If you chose to ignore quarantine rules, vaccinations, or even mask mandates, are you not being negligent ?

This is a common theme I find myself coming back to ...
Why do your rights ( not to be vaccinated ) supersede my rights ( to not get sick from you ) ?

I think you are mentioning two issues here. One, is that of liability, which can lead to criminal or civil persecution, the other is one regarding the ability of the government to impose restrictions within (not beyond) the limits of human rights.

In that regard we are in agreement that mask and vaccination mandates are something that can be implemented (similarly to laws against drunk driving or for seat belt mandates). The other part is more about potential persecution of violating these orders. They are a bit outside of the humans rights discussion at hand, as once laws or ordinances are in place, punishments can be meted out for their violation. But again, it means that these restrictions should be implemented within certain limitations. For example, it should not be possible for the government to arbitrarily quarantine certain folks but let others do as they wish, without scientific justification. Likewise the length of these measures should not be at will but be aligned with public health requirements. It should not be possible to isolate folks, and at the same time deprive them of food and water and other necessities. It should be impossible for the government to euthanize people just because folks are afraid that they might be infected (as in the US some lawmakers proposed during one of the Ebola outbreaks).

If we as a society say that we can grant as well as remove rights just because we hit a rough spot, than these rights are worthless. Instead, we need to use them as guiding principles in which to implement public health measures. 

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Otherwise, not vaxxing is somewhat akin to getting out on a public road after dark without headlights.  Your personal risk becomes other people's risk.

That is one of the basic arguments for vaccinations as a public health mandate and why the main argument that in itself it is not a violation of the human right of self determination.

[swansont]

Unfortunately a fair number of people complaining about rights are invoking phantom rights, with the misconception that “freedom” means “doing whatever I want”

Countries (generally speaking) have constitutions, which serve to describe the powers granted to the government. It may be that some powers may only be exercised under certain conditions, such as during a pandemic.

If such power is granted, and exercised, individual rights are not being violated - they don’t actually exist. 

[MigL]

In Canada, I can be fined for not wearing a seatbelt while operating a motor vehicle.
It  is a public safety issue, as seatbelts save lives.
Why should I not be fined if I refuse to get vaccinated ????

Edited December 13, 2021 by MigL

[CharonY]

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

Why should I not be fined if I refuse to get vaccinated ????

I don't think anyone here right now is arguing against it.

[Phi for All]

13 hours ago, MigL said:

In Canada, I can be fined for not wearing a seatbelt while operating a motor vehicle.
It  is a public safety issue, as seatbelts save lives.
Why should I not be fined if I refuse to get vaccinated ????

I think many of the folks arguing against mandatory vaccines are thinking about it like seatbelts. "Sure they save lives, but it should be a choice since it's my body." But this is more like the old Christmas lights, where if one bulb is out, the whole strand doesn't work. This is more like if you don't wear your seatbelt, other people's seatbelts won't engage properly. 

[dimreepr]

19 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think many of the folks arguing against mandatory vaccines are thinking about it like seatbelts. "Sure they save lives, but it should be a choice since it's my body." But this is more like the old Christmas lights, where if one bulb is out, the whole strand doesn't work. This is more like if you don't wear your seatbelt, other people's seatbelts won't engage properly. 

Indeed +1, as a society we can only travel at the slowest speed of it member's, but we can pick them up and help them speed up. 

No one has the right to expect help when they need it, without getting on the train with the rest of us...

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I think many of the folks arguing against mandatory vaccines are thinking about it like seatbelts. "Sure they save lives, but it should be a choice since it's my body." But this is more like the old Christmas lights, where if one bulb is out, the whole strand doesn't work. This is more like if you don't wear your seatbelt, other people's seatbelts won't engage properly. 

In that regard it’s more like running a stop sign/red light, or driving drunk. It’s not just about the individual’s risk of harming themselves. 

[Phi for All]

59 minutes ago, swansont said:

In that regard it’s more like running a stop sign/red light, or driving drunk. It’s not just about the individual’s risk of harming themselves. 

I've been thinking about this a lot lately since a part of my daily drive involves a couple of busy 3-way and 4-way stop intersections. If people don't cooperate with the "vehicle to the right has the right of way" law when we stop at the same time, accidents are practically guaranteed. If you choose to ignore that law regularly, it won't be long before you're the cause of a lot of misery. More people need to perceive vaccinations and masking the same way. You don't have the right to disrupt the safety of a working system.

[StringJunky]

There can be no freedom without civic responsibility. This needs to start with embedding it into schoolchildren from the beginning of their education.

Edited December 14, 2021 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

There can be no freedom without civic responsibility. This needs to start with embedding it into schoolchildren from the start of their education.

Where does that start?

[iNow]

35 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Where does that start?

Mothers womb. Now, back to the "human rights during pandemic" topic at hand...

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No one has the right to expect help when they need it, without getting on the train with the rest of us...

If that means what I think it means, then you have at last, hit the nail fair square on the head. Here, I give you a like!!

[MigL]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No one has the right to expect help when they need it, without getting on the train with the rest of us...

If that means what I think it means, then you have at last, hit the nail fair square on the head. Here, I give you a like!!

Then we don't agree on this Beecee.
Everyone has the right to expect help, even if they don't do their part.
But they should expect a 'punishment' of some sort, if they don't.

Would Dimreepr have posted that line if we were discussing welfare recipients ??
Dmreepr should know that drug users are prosecuted ( and arrested ) for illegal drug use, yet they are not turned away at hospitals for complications with illegal drug use.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Then we don't agree on this Beecee.
Everyone has the right to expect help, even if they don't do their part.
But they should expect a 'punishment' of some sort, if they don't.

Would Dimreepr have posted that line if we were discussing welfare recipients ??
Dmreepr should know that drug users are prosecuted ( and arrested ) for illegal drug use, yet they are not turned away at hospitals for complications with illegal drug use.

On thinking further, I agree. I was actually trying so hard to be nice to dimreeper with his generally cryptic answers, that I failed to take in the full meaning of the exact consequences. 😏 Thanks for the wise words.

I get my booster shot tomorrow.

[zapatos]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No one has the right to expect help when they need it, without getting on the train with the rest of us...

And is it you who decides which is the correct train? Like everything else we discuss on this site things are not as simple as black and white.

Most people here are of the same opinion and therefore the echos reinforce the legitimacy of that opinion. But some are reluctant to get a jab because authorities tell them to, and with good reason. We cannot punish people who don't do what we tell them to do, when they've seen suffering due to listening to authority in the first place.

And last but not least, I suspect you'll find close to zero the number of health care professionals who would act on your suggestion.

[MigL]

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

But some are reluctant to get a jab because authorities tell them to, and with good reason. We cannot punish people who don't do what we tell them to do, when they've seen suffering due to listening to authority in the first place.

We can't turn them away from hospitals when theyeventually contract Covid, but we can certainly 'punish' them in ways that makes it inconvenient to not get vaccinated.

A lot of viral diseases have been eradicated by forcible childhood immunization; you had to get vaccinated to attend elementary school. Did you forget that ?
If you are willing to wear an ankle bracelet, stay in your home, and not come in contact with anyone, then by all means, don't get vaccinated. But if you intend to go to movies, restaurants, or even grocery shopping, where you might come into contact with people who have upheld their part of the social contract, then you'd better follow suit.
And that goes for your family, and others, who may be exposed to you.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

We cannot punish people who don't do what we tell them to do

And yet we do it all the time. We tell them to drive under the speed limit and stay off the grass, and punish them when we catch them doing those things. Laws and regulations are part of the equation.

Quote

And last but not least, I suspect you'll find close to zero the number of health care professionals who would act on your suggestion.

I agree, but that’s not the only leverage. Get vaccinated or we fire you. If you’re not vaccinated your work-related health care won’t cover your COVID treatment (probably only applies to the US system). 

[CharonY]

I think the bigger point here is not whether measures are allowed. They certainly are. Likewise, policies are in place to encourage certain behaviour and discourage others. This is no different in a pandemic.

But perhaps rather what potential limits are under the overall framework of human rights. In another thread there were comments indicating that it should be possible to essentially suspend human rights. In contrast, I think that effective measures are not only feasible but should in fact not be at odds with human rights in order to ensure public health and safety.

Rather, the right for health is tightly interconnected to other human rights and therefore effective policies should fulfil these standards. 

In other words, it not a yes/no situation with regard to pandemic measure, but one should rather ask whether the measures are: improving public health (i.e. following science);  deployed fairly and equitably; has enough measures in place to ease hardships and promote compliance. 

Enforcing safe vaccines against a deadly disease in public spaces would fall under that mandate, for example.