Confiding in Stéphane Baillargeon for the article in Duty published on January 7, the president of the Commission for ethics in science and technology of Quebec, the philosopher Jocelyn Maclure, expresses well the individualistic thought which is currently spreading in Quebec. Fueled by recent health measures, this prospect has also been maintained for several months by the League of Rights and Freedoms, tireless critic of the “coercive” nature of the government’s approach.
Thus, restricting the access of the unvaccinated to businesses would, according to Maclure, be part of a “quasi revengeful conception of justice”, which would target a minority in the name of “popular discontent”. That the full burden of this type of restriction actually falls on the vaccinated majority – responsibility for shopping on the latter, queues for health passport checks, etc. – does not seem to have crossed the mind of Professor Maclure.
Asked about compulsory vaccination, the professor is moreover sharp: ” […] we are dealing with fellow citizens, and we have to ask ourselves how far we want to go in extremely harsh and punitive and ruthless measures. […] You have to make decisions that are effective and proportionate. Immunization against a deadly highly transmissible virus: an “extremely harsh and ruthless” measure? We will have read everything.
This policy would be disproportionate to what, exactly? If Mr. Maclure considers that an injection which commits to nothing other than to recognize the validity of epidemiological science is disproportionate in relation to confinement, isolation, curfew, dropping out of school, public debt and the load shedding that affects the suffering of old people, the chronically ill and cancer patients awaiting examinations or treatments, that is to say to a fundamental destabilization of the universality of the health system, then we do not live in the same ethical dimension.
A sad farce
The concepts of common good, public interest and social democracy represent very little in the face of this conception of rights and freedoms, absolutist to the point of absurdity. Its supporters are therefore obviously against the prioritization of vaccinated patients, an intolerable discrimination. Should we then, we are retorted indignantly, refuse to treat criminals, alcoholic road accidents, drug addicts, smokers?
Each one goes there from his own case by convincing himself to formulate the find of the century, a deep ethical reflection. What a sad joke! Thinking for two seconds is enough to understand that these comparisons are abusive: there is not and there has never been any hospital relief because of drivers or smokers. And besides, drug addiction, smoking and alcoholism are addictions, and drinking and driving is a crime, punished as such.
Opposition to the vaccine, on the other hand, is the sheer whim of a minority of gullible and uncompromising individuals. To consider that to force, in the name of public health, this minority to overcome its adolescent refusal of authority constitutes a ruthless punishment is already cowardly. Above all, persisting in not discriminating against the “antivax” when they almost inevitably appear in our public hospitals, even though we are already chasing the vaccinated people who need treatment, is downright cruel.
Since the spring of 2020, hundreds of thousands of cancer screening examinations have been postponed, including more than 150,000 mammograms. And the situation, particularly because of the conspiratorial stubbornness of individual kings, is now more serious than ever. From one hospital to another, it is planned to postpone up to 80% of planned surgeries in the coming weeks. Mental health assessments are postponed in Greece. Diseases are getting worse and people will die. And why ?
Because having lost the sense of responsibility, our society still coaxes, with human lives and billions in public spending, this limited minority in the name of the sacrosanct individual rights, to the point of making it the focal point of general organization of health and hospital measures. The College of Physicians itself denounces this situation and now calls for stricter measures.
No, we are not witnessing an authoritarian drift, but at the supreme stage of liberal ethics, which kills in the name of the egocentric whims of a gregarious minority. Let’s come to our senses. Strongly compulsory vaccination as in Austria, exemplary democracy, or then strongly the hospital relief of the unvaccinated and the imposition of a “health tax” being reserved for them. “Our duties are the rights that others have over us,” said Nietzsche. To impose duties on everyone is to affirm the rights of all.