Proverbial Living

Following are summary excerpts from a recent article written by Bishop Thomas John Paprocki, bishop of Springfield, Illinois. The compete article can be read at Ethics & Medics.

Terror on every side! These frightening words are from the prophet Jeremiah. These days we again hear dire warnings of “terror on every side!” We might say that this has been the message repeated almost 24/7 since March 2020 regarding the coronavirus pandemic. Yes, the prospect of serious illness and possible death from a novel virus for which we do not have a vaccine can be terrifying.

In recent months we have heard regular briefings coming from the White House and governors’ offices across the country where government officials and health experts have been giving dire warnings about a virus that can kill the body. But we have heard very few warnings about moral hazards that can also result in death or serious illness. Some, for example, have said that access to liquor, cannabis, casinos, and abortion is essential, but going to church and access to the sacraments are not.

We have also taken the extraordinary and unprecedented step of shutting down a major portion of our economy for the past several months, telling people to stay home, not to go to work, and not to go to school. The US Department of Commerce said in July 2020 that the gross domestic product fell at a seasonally and inflation adjusted 32.9 percent annual rate in the second quarter of 2020, or a 9.5 percent drop compared with the prior quarter. The figures were the steepest declines in more than seventy years of record keeping. Meanwhile, unemployment claims rose to 1.43 million people.

So as we look back at what we have done and look forward to consider how we will respond in the future if there should be a second wave of COVID-19 or if some other novel virus should sweep the world, I think it would be helpful to call to mind some Catholic moral principles to help illuminate how to address a pandemic.

Medical ethics uses the standard of ordinary and extraordinary means of preserving life. It is important to keep these principles in mind when considering the societal response to a pandemic or, for that matter, to any threat to human life. If we have a moral obligation to use every possible means, even extraordinary means, to preserve life, then we should not even get into our cars, since there is a risk that we could be killed, given the fact that over thirty-five thousand people have died nationwide in auto accidents every year since 1951. But we do not stop driving, and there is no moral imperative to stop driving, because we recognize that it would be an extraordinary burden on everyday life if people could not get to where they need to be for work, school, family, and other obligations to which they must attend. Instead we take safety precautions to minimize the risk, such as using seat belts, installing air bags, and following the rules of the road.

Similarly in the face of a pandemic, do we have a moral obligation to shut down our society, require people to stay at home, put employees out of work, send businesses into bankruptcy, impair the food supply chain, and prevent worshippers from going to religious services? I would say no. That would be imposing unduly burdensome and extraordinary means. While some people may voluntarily adopt such means, only ordinary means that are not unduly burdensome are morally required to preserve life, both on the part of individuals as well as society as a whole.

The burdens of lockdowns and other restrictions on normal human interactions are not just economic but also social. While I do not like the term social distancing, it is not altogether incorrect. I do not like the term because social distancing seems to imply social isolation. But that seems to be precisely what is happening in our society. People are becoming isolated from each other as they shrink in fear of human interaction. I prefer to use terms such as safe distancing or physical distancing to describe the practice of keeping an adequate distance from others to reduce the risk of contagious contamination while trying to maintain social interaction as much as possible.

A similar principle is involved in the formulation of civil law, which should not be posited as an imposition of authority simply because a government official has the power to do so. Civil law should be based on and flow from natural law, which is the innate sense of right and wrong written into our hearts by God and which can be discerned through the use of right reason. Thus, civil law flows from ethics. Not all moral values need be legislated or coerced as legally binding, but laws are normally enacted because they flow from ethical principles that are recognized and accepted by the community as being necessary to protect the common good. This can be seen in the criminalization of murder, rape, theft, and perjury. These are crimes because they are universally recognized as harmful to the common good of society. But not everything that may cause harm need be or should be proscribed. Burdens and benefits must be weighed along with competing claims of rights.

I saw an illustration of this in a television interview with a teacher who was trying to make her case that schools should not be reopened, because she thought it would be too risky to do so. When the interviewer pointed out that young children as a group are not at high risk of becoming seriously ill with COVID-19 and they have not shown high rates of transmission of the novel coronavirus, the teacher responded, “Well, even if the rates are low, the risk is still there,” and then she added—apparently thinking this was the clincher of her moral argument—“Somebody could die.” If somebody could die were the sole criterion for deciding to engage in any given behavior, we would be paralyzed by fear of doing anything. If somebody could die were the simple moral standard that could disqualify partaking in any given human activity, then I should not be running marathons or playing hockey, even though mortality rates are low for these activities. On the other hand, physical inactivity is a morbidity factor for heart disease, some cancers, and stroke, so staying in bed all day is not a morally acceptable alternative either. So what are we to do?

It is here that the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary means of preserving life is important, for if a means is extraordinary—that is, if the burdens outweigh the benefits—then it is not morally obligatory and should not be coerced by state power. In this regard, a good example of properly weighing the burdens and benefits or reopening schools can be seen in a report that appeared on NBC Nightly News on July 12, 2020, in which five pediatricians from across the country unanimously and emphatically agreed that the benefits of children’s being back at school outweigh the risks. As we reflect on our moral obligations in light of the coronavirus pandemic, we would do well to remember these basic principles of moral ethics and do our best to ensure that the restrictions are commensurate to the risk.