Many people worldwide, particularly those with disabilities and the elderly, suffered greatly not only as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic but also as a result of the lockdowns. In this article we set out widely-accepted ethical criteria for assessing when coercive public health measures are justified. We then review the empirical evidence, not least concerning the benefits and costs of the lockdowns, and conclude that lockdowns as instituted in the UK (and, presumptively, in many other jurisdictions) appeared to breach those criteria. We conclude that any future proposal to lockdown should be subjected to the strictest ethical scrutiny, and that a lockdown should not be contemplated unless it could be convincingly demonstrated that the benefits would substantially outweigh the harms; that it would be proportionate, and that legal coercion would be strictly necessary.
Keywords: Covid-19; economya; ethics; law; lockdowns; public health.
Copyright © 2023 by the National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled, Inc.