Lockdown and levelling down: why Savulescu and Cameron are mistaken about selective isolation of the elderly

In their recent article, ‘Why lockdown of the elderly is not ageist and why levelling down equality is wrong’, Savulescu and Cameron argue for selective isolation of the elderly as an alternative to general lockdown. An important part of their argument is the claim that the latter amounts to ‘levell...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of medical ethics Vol. 46; no. 11; pp. 722 - 723
Main Author Hughes, Jonathan A
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England BMJ Publishing Group LTD 01.11.2020
Subjects
Aged
Ageism
Bioethics
Coronaviruses
COVID-19
Egalitarianism
Equality
Health services
Humans
Infections
Medical ethics
Public health
New York
United States > US
public health ethics
public policy
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:In their recent article, ‘Why lockdown of the elderly is not ageist and why levelling down equality is wrong’, Savulescu and Cameron argue for selective isolation of the elderly as an alternative to general lockdown. An important part of their argument is the claim that the latter amounts to ‘levelling down equality’ and that this is ‘unethical’ or even ‘morally repugnant’. This response argues that they fail to justify either part of this claim: the claim that levelling down is always morally wrong is subject to challenges that Savulescu and Cameron do not consider; and a policy of maintaining general lockdown does not constitute levelling down, as it provides absolute benefits to those who would be worse off under selective isolation.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
ObjectType-Commentary-1
ISSN:0306-6800
1473-4257
DOI:10.1136/medethics-2020-106776