GERONTICIDE IN THE AGE OF COVID-19

Tony Abbott, former Australian Prime Minister (and internationally notorious misogynist) recently put forward the view that if we were less concerned with preventing Covid-19 from killing the elderly, our economy would benefit and recover

Any suggestion that this proposal could not possibly be as callous as it sounds was put to rest by this wannabe statesman’s reported explanation that in view of the ‘economic cost of lockdowns…families should be allowed to consider letting elderly relatives with coronavirus die, by letting nature take its course.’ This view is disturbing on so many levels.

Abbott is actually proposing that the elderly in our society should not receive treatment and consequently be condemned to die from Covid-19. The rationale offered by this despicable human being is that even if the elderly in aged care who test positive to Covid-19 are treated and recover, they will probably only live for another year. So, keeping the elderly alive, he suggests, simply does not make economic sense.

I am also disgusted by his proposal that families should decide whether their elderly relatives live or die. He appears to be suggesting that the elderly be deprived of their autonomy. On reflection, this suggestion is not altogether surprising in view of Abbotts’ vehement opposition to voluntary euthanasia. It would seem that he is of the view that while the elderly should not be permitted to decide to end their lives earlier than medical treatment would dictate, at least in the case of Covid-19, relatives of elderly virus patients should decide whether they should die even where available medical treatment may keep them alive. With elder financial abuse rife, such decisions would, one suspects, often be made in the interest of securing an earlier inheritance.

To cloak this immoral proposal with some justification, Abbott has stated, ‘The generation of the second world war had been prepared to risk life to preserve freedom. This generation is ready to risk freedom to preserve life.” At first glance, at least some may find this view persuasive. But let’s stop and consider why this statement is nonsense.

It is true that the WW II generation was prepared to risk the lives of the men and women of the armed forces in order to preserve the way of life and freedoms enjoyed by Australians. However, I’ve no doubt that if asked, our servicemen and women would have said that above all they risked their lives to protect the lives of those at home, including the elderly. They did not risk their lives to bolster the economy, and not surprisingly, the war effort came at a great cost to the Australian economy.

Abbot’s criticism of the current generation is that we are prepared to risk the freedom of movement responsible for the spread of a deadly virus, for what he clearly sees as a less worthy reason – that of preserving life.

His emotive reference to ‘freedom’ ignores the fact that much of our criminal law is concerned with preserving life by restricting our freedom to, for example, speed on the road or assault others.

Abbot’s comments echo the views being less openly expressed by members of the Donald Trump and Boris Johnson governments. His views are the views of economically conservative politicians, tycoons, bureaucrats and power-brokers, expressing their willingness to sacrifice ‘unproductive’ members of society in order to bolster national economies and the coffers of those who stand to gain the most.

In earlier stages of the pandemic, such views and consequent actions appeared to be confined to seemingly incompetent and narcissistic political leaders of some North and South American countries. They openly understated (Abbott says that we exaggerate the effect of the virus), denied the dangers posed by the pandemic, or even sacrificed some of their people in order to lessen the pandemic’s impact on their economies or prospects of re-election.

Even our current Prime Minister Scott Morrison argues that the inevitable human toll of opening up our social and business sectors is the price we need to pay if we are to avoid the enormous economic and human cost of ongoing lockdown.

In contrast, Dan Andrews, the Premier of Victoria, has taken the opposite view by locking down over 5 million people in order to minimise the human toll of the pandemic.

Some influential financial commentators also do not see the health of the economy as an objective to be achieved at the expense of lives. For example, on yesterday morning’s ABC TV’s Breakfast News, Alan Kohler, the highly informative and entertaining economist, argued vehemently that recovery from Covid-19 needs to be measured foremost in terms of saving lives rather than in economic measures such as GDP and forecasts of unemployment levels.

In proposing that we sacrifice the elderly to ‘prop up the economy,’ Abbott is not only ageist, as his comments may also amount to senicide or geronticide (the killing or fatal abandonment of the elderly).  A society that adopts Abbott’s values is one that discards those who do not contribute to the economy and are considered to be an economic burden and thus deemed expendable.

If Abbott lacks the decency, ethics and morality to see that lives matter more than money, he should listen to the Head of the religion he proudly follows. When discussing responses to Covid-19, Pope Francis declared that it is a sin to discard the elderly.

The extreme nature of Abbot’s proposal both highlights and distracts from the broader question of, what is the right thing to do in confronting Covid-19. This question encompasses the decisions made by our leaders and the decisions each of us makes in respect of the direction issued and restrictions imposed by our political leaders.

That contrary views as to personal and governmental responses to Covid-19 claim to be based on the advice of medical experts is due to the underlying philosophies, assumptions and concepts of justice that determine what is presented as ‘the right thing to do.’

I turn, first, to those who assert that they have a right to not follow guidelines and directives such as those relating to travel, the wearing of masks and social distancing, and who even challenge the existence of the pandemic.  Thus, many of us were dismayed to read that some 30% of those who had flown in from overseas refused to be tested for Covid-19. Currently, we see demonstrations against the lockdown in Victoria.

No doubt, we’ve all heard someone claim that they have a right to decide whether they social distance and allow themselves to be tested for the virus.

Many of us are inclined to condone an adult individual’s right to make decisions regarding their health – even where by doing so they are likely to increase the chances of contracting a potentially fatal viral illness. However, I propose that there are a number of compelling reasons why in the current context of Covid-19 restrictions, such decisions may be both morally reprehensible but also so anti-social that they justify being legally prohibited.

Firstly, non-compliance with restrictions impedes strategies designed to identify clusters and sources. Even if not infected, a person who, while living in a community that is under threat from the virus, interferes with the community’s attempts to protect itself, that person acts contrary to what the community and its elected leaders see as actions protecting individuals and the community as a whole. This, I suggest, largely counters the argument that as they are not infected and consequently do not pose any danger to others, they should not be compelled to be tested or abide by social distancing edicts.

Those basing their dissent on human rights also appear to overlook the limits of such a personal right. What distinguishes the limits imposed on the rights of citizens by governments battling Covid-19 is that the right to do what we want is invariably confined to actions which do not have a negative effect on or impinge on the competing rights of others.

For that reason, an asserted right not to wear a mask does not extend to situations where the rights of others not to be infected would be infringed. It can also be said that mask-wearing requirements are less concerned with the health of the wearer and more concerned with the transmission of the virus by those who fail to wear a mask.

However, for limits on rights to be justified, they must be shown to be reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. In this respect, our governments bear the onus of establishing that their imposition of restrictions is necessary and proportionate. Queensland’s Premier Anastasia Palaszczuk, who feels entitled to impose whatever restrictions she deems appropriate may struggle to justify her restriction of rights.

Secondly, it has been argued that the risk that some may be infected with Covid-19, does not justify impeding the functioning of the rest of society. This majoritarian approach focuses on maximising the happiness of the majority – even if at the expense of a minority.

Such an approach appears to be at odds with our society’s protection of the rights of minorities and unwillingness to sacrifice the rights of some in order to benefit the majority. Nevertheless, the majoritarian view is more persuasive when coupled with the argument that neglecting the rights of the majority (and largely destroying the economy) may ultimately harm more people than would otherwise be the case. It would certainly create a moral dilemma if letting some die would permit a larger number to live, or the choice was between allowing either the elderly or the young to live.

Thirdly, even, where a person, who does not comply with distancing restrictions or requirements to be tested, contracts the illness without infecting anyone else, it could be said that in doing so they have acted in an anti-social manner, and by so doing impose an unnecessary burden on society, and consequently warrant being sanctioned.

Arguably, the significant cost of treating an illness that could have been avoided is borne by society. In addition, the use of scarce medical resources may also impact the treatment of those who have contracted the virus through no fault of their own. The positive test results of those not complying with restrictions involve further implications and costs through the need to clean spaces they have occupied and test persons with whom they have come in contact.

Even US President Trump’s ‘flat-earther’ supporters and others who reject virology and other branches of medical science, should note that the laws that govern our society are based on scientific knowledge, and those who reject them are not excused from compliance, especially if their exemption imperils the health and safety of others. This is graphically illustrated by those who believe that Covid-19 is a hoax. To paraphrase US politicians and academic, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, ‘Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.’

Ultimately, how we determine whether a particular response to Covid-19 is the ‘right’ response, comes down to whether we assess it on the basis of ultimate consequences or whether we consider the inherent morality and acceptability of the response.

On this basis, Tony Abbott assesses the restrictions and lockdowns in terms of their likely effect on the economy. His argument for the loosening of restraints loses strength if consequences extending beyond economics are considered. How will unnecessary deaths affect the welfare of society. Sadly, our politicians, with the notable exception of New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern view the outcome largely in terms of GDP.

So, if we assess the rights and wrongs of current restraints in terms of their outcome, we may well conclude that the ends justify the means and consequently a quicker recovery (especially economic) to be justification for the extra deaths caused by the easing of constraints. A broader view of the welfare of society, may on the other hand conclude that financial gains did not justify the extra deaths and the social impact on society.

An aligned view is one mentioned above and often posed in psychological quizzes. Is it right to save the lives of many by sacrificing a few? This was the WW II sacrifice that Abbott mentioned but misrepresented. It is distinguishable in that lives were sacrificed for more lives rather than being sacrificed for economic benefits. Even here some of us may feel that it is not appropriate to sacrifice the lives of some in order to preserve the lives of others.

This brings me to the competing, and in my view, far more commendable view – that whether something is right or wrong is to be determined by considering whether it is morally or ethically right rather than by looking at consequences.

Whether an action is right or wrong, inherently or in the circumstances may or some be determined by religious teaching. For others, it may be a matter of universal rights.

However, we arrive at our view, it is difficult to see how we could say that the act of withdrawing medication from those in need simply because they are elderly is the right thing to do. It would amount to homicide by omission, and be immoral or contrary to dominant religious or ethical views in our society.

If nothing else, I trust that I have outlined a case for why it is important that personal and governmental policies and actions regarding Covid-19 be assessed not only in terms of statistics and the health of the economy but also in terms of whether they are morally right, just, ethical and reflect our fundamental values.