Was WHO SARS-related travel advisory for Toronto ethical?
Freedom of movement is undoubtedly a fundamental international right. However, circumstances may arise where that right must be curtailed. Was the 2003 SARS outbreak in Toronto one such circumstance? Guénaël R.M. Rodier thinks WHO's decision to impose a SARS-related travel advisory was justifiable, even reasonable, though it caused a loss of over $1.1 billion in the Greater Toronto Area. That travel to an infected area was the most common epidemiological link with SARS infections supports Rodier's position. However, as suggested in the Naylor report, issuing a travel advisory does not keep infected individuals from leaving Toronto and such individuals account for 5 of 6 cases where SARS was spread from Canada. That alone would discount Rodier's argument and the WHO decision on purely logistical grounds. But there is an ethical question as well. Was the travel advisory implemented fairly? This question is best judged using Nancy E. Kass's framework for public health. From that framework, two points are placed in immediate relief. First, the Toronto authorities were not given an opportunity to state their case to WHO before the travel advisory was implemented. Second, the framework requires that burdens be distributed fairly and the travel advisory did not do that, or even attempt to do so.
Paquin
Leo J
LJ
McGill University, Bioethics Unit, Montreal, QC. leo.paquin@gmail.com
D003140:Communicable Disease Control / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D003657:Decision Making / Q000941:ethics; D004196:Disease Outbreaks / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000517:prevention & control*; D006291:Health Policy; D006801:Humans; D009864:Ontario / Q000453:epidemiology; D011634:Public Health / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D045169:Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome / Q000453:epidemiology* / Q000517:prevention & control; D012935:Social Justice; D014195:Travel; D014944:World Health Organization