"Opening Up" Ethically
In “opening America,” how do we balance the dangers of COVID19 against the pain inflicted by shutdowns? This question is testing the nation’s ethical character.
The ethical choices we’ve made until now reflect well on us. Every hour, millions of Americans put their livelihoods and often their lives on the line to help others. Individual Americans have practiced social distancing not only for their own benefit but for others. Workers in essential services have continued to provide them. Government officials have worked to provide funds, equipment, supplies, guidelines, and information. Though the roll-out of this has at times been problematic and clearly has not reached all in need, the intent is ethically sound: easing the medical, economic and personal cost of COVID19.
Yet for some Americans, impatience is growing. While a late-April poll found 73 percent of voters approve of maintaining social distancing measures until the virus is under control, recent protests and messages from the president and other politicians are pushing to ease lockdown measures now. States are responding.
For those pushing to re-open, the issue is sometimes framed as “the cure should not be worse than the disease.” This phrasing presents a false moral dilemma. It acts as if protecting the health of Americans must be associated with destroying the livelihoods of Americans.
We can choose both, if we act prudently and forcefully. By making testing universally available, followed by contact tracing and isolating those infected and exposed, we can map the spread and danger in any community and “open” based on data rather than impatience or hope. Such a response requires commitment and resources at the national and state level. It is what White House guidelines proposed. Yet states have been told to make their own decisions. They lack the means and/or the will to adopt these guidelines, but most are beginning to open up anyway.
Some have suggested “opening up” could, sadly, mean many older Americans will die. We should also add people with underlying conditions, the poor who live in crowded areas or lack health care, many minorities, and workers in jobs where social distancing procedures have not been taken. Indeed, a recent CDC report projects the number of daily infections could increase seven-fold and daily deaths nearly double by loosening restrictions now. Yet, the response to COVID19 need not become “survival of the fittest.” It is immoral to treat some people as a means to the end of helping other people go about their lives. People are ends in themselves; at least that’s the moral core on which this nation is founded. We can protect the most vulnerable as more of the economy is opened. Better care and precautions for the elderly and poor, much more protective equipment, social distancing and industrial design of workspaces to prevent crowding are just some of the steps within our capability as a nation. What we’re lacking is the will, persistence and commitment of resources to take such steps. For those who protest most vigorously, their unstated motto seems to be “let’s open up and let the chips fall where they may.”
By acting as if it’s a binary choice between lockdown and opening up, many Americans are turning against each other. Instead of wise, ethical choices that signal a national character of caring for our most vulnerable, we are abandoning ethics for expediency. Stillwater, Oklahoma city manager Norman NcNickle recently issued a declaration that both employees and customers had to wear face masks in stores and restaurants that were opening up. Some store employees were verbally abused, physically threatened and also threatened with the use of a firearm. Though he had made a reasonable ethical compromise, McNickle backed down and rescinded the declaration. In Flint, Michigan, a security guard at a Family Dollar store was shot to death when he refused to let a patron enter without a mask. Unchecked, the path of angry protest will lead to more social unrest and violence. Leaders at all levels should warn against this and openly condemn the resort to intimidation and extremism. Silence conveys acceptance at best and approval at worst.
The American idea is grounded in individual dignity. The primary role of government is to protect American lives. In the rush to reopen, if we abandon these principles we abandon who we are. “In the final analysis, former President George W. Bush said during a 24-hour streamed effort of people from across the world, The Call to Unite, we are not partisan combatants. We are human beings, equally vulnerable and equally wonderful in the sight of God. We rise or fall together, and we are determined to rise.”
If we want to look back on this year as one of a proud victory against a deadly foe, where we put acting ethically in the forefront of our decisions to both save lives and jobs, we can do that. But will we?
Photo Credit: Mike Haupt-unsplash.com
