Quarantine, isolation and the duty of easy rescue in public health

Giubilini, Alberto; Douglas, Thomas; Maslen, Hannah; Savulescu, Julian

It is plausible to assume that loss of livelihoods, stigmatization, and lack of food, water and sanitation—circumstances that, as noted above, often occurred in the case of quarantine measures during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa—do not constitute forms of “easy rescue”, especially when they are endured for a significant period of time. That being so, it seems that the duty of easy rescue, as we have interpreted it, does not impose a moral obligation on individuals to submit to quarantine and isolation in those circumstances. Therefore, in such circumstances, the general justification for coercing or compelling people to submit to quarantine or isolation is weaker than it would have been if individuals had a moral duty to submit to quarantine and isolation. However, even if that is the case, such circumstances are a contingent, and not a necessary feature of quarantine and isolation. If the conditions of those in quarantine and isolation were improved—for example, if individuals were provided with food, water, sanitation and medical assistance (in order to reduce the risk of contagion), psychological counselling, adequate financial compensation for any loss of livelihoods—submitting to quarantine or isolation might represent a form of rescue that is easy in both comparative and absolute terms. Therefore, our formulation of the duty of easy rescue would imply that individuals are under a moral duty to submit to such measures.