Question

What is legal paternalism and give me an example of legal paternalism with regards to our government’s reaction to the coronavirus? Do you think that your example of legal paternalism is justified? Are the quarantine orders or orders to stay at home given by several states and local governments an example of legal paternalism (do not use this as your example). Assuming it is legal paternalism, is it justified? Does it violate any of our legal rights or human rights?

Answer 1

Paternalism is the intrusion with another person's rights or liberty, intended to encourage good or to avoid damage to that individual. Examples of daily paternalism are regulations that include seat belts, wear helmets when riding a bicycle and bann other substances. An behavior is paternalistic whether its purpose is to encourage benefit or avoid damage to a person, the behavior is contrary to that person's existing desires and the action is a restriction to the individual's autonomy.

Yes, legal paternalism is justified. I believe its not only you yourself who you need to worry about. Its also about your family. With out anny legal paternalism, many individuals will tend to act otherwise which is not good for them. and any harm to a particular person also means it will also harm on the dependents. Lets asuume that due to not wearing helmet, a person dies. Now he had 2 other dependents on him. His daughter and his wife now have to take the financial responsiblity as well as the daughter have to go through numerous hurdles while growing up due to not having a father. On the other hand, the lady also have to take care of her daughter as well as go for a job to earn her living. Govt on the other hand have to take care of the family till the time she gets a job. That will impose an economic burden on the govt. So, I think legal paternalism is justified.

Yes, the quarentine orders to stay at home is an example of legal paternalism.Yes, this kind of legal paternalism is justified as by going out, a person is more in risk of getting himself or others infected.

International human rights legislation grants all the right to the best attainable health quality and obliges states to take action to avoid public health risks and offer emergency services to those in need. Human rights law also acknowledges that, in the case of severe public health challenges and national crises that endanger the life of the country, limitations on other freedoms can be justified if they have a legitimate justification, are purely appropriate on the justification of medical facts, and are neither coercive nor biased in their implementation, are of short length, regard for human dignity, subject to scrutiny.

The magnitude and severity of the COVID-19 pandemic obviously rises to the point of a threat to public safety which could warrant limitations on certain rights, such as those arising from the implementation of quarantine or segregation restricting freedom of movement. At the very same time, close adherence to civil rights such as non-discrimination and values of human rights such as openness and regard for human dignity may promote an appropriate approach in the middle of the chaos and instability that invariably lead to periods of crisis and reduce the harms that could come from implementing excessively broad interventions that may not follow the requirements listed above.

So, I dont think it violate any of our legal rights or human rights.