Coercive public health policies need context-specific ethical justifications

Area of Science:

• Public Health Ethics
• Bioethics
• Policy Analysis

Background:

• Coercive public health policies aim to improve health but require ethical justification.
• Existing literature lacks clarity on which ethical concepts justify coercion and their contextual limitations.

Purpose of the Study:

• To analyze Western bioethical concepts as justifications for coercive public health policies.
• To identify the limitations of these concepts when applied to real-world case studies.
• To highlight the need for context-specific ethical justifications.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of Western bioethical concepts: harm principle, paternalism, public interest, duty of easy rescue.
• Application of these concepts to case studies: HIV testing (Malawi), vaccine mandates (South Africa), antibiotic use prohibitions (EU).

Main Results:

• Western bioethical concepts appear plausible justifications for coercion in theory.
• Case study applications reveal significant limitations of these universalizing concepts.
• Context-specificity of ethical justifications for coercion is often overlooked.

Conclusions:

• Relying on universal Western bioethical justifications for coercive policies is inadequate.
• Further research is needed to develop context-relevant ethical justifications for diverse settings and populations.
• Tailoring ethical frameworks to specific contexts is crucial for justifying coercive public health interventions.