“Individuals might reasonably expect the freedom to make their own decisions regarding their health. However, what happens when an individual’s wishes conflict with what is in that individual’s best interests? How far should an individual’s rights be restricted for his or her own benefit? Similarly, what limitations should be placed on an individual’s behaviour when that person’s wishes go against what is good for the population in general?” (Looker, et al., 2006).
In other words, how can we balance individual needs and wants with collective needs and wants?
Let’s think about this concept in a real situation.
Influenza is a disease that has a medicine called Tamiflu®. As an individual, one “may want to keep a stockpile of the anti-influenza drug Tamiflu® for his own personal use in case there is an epidemic,” but if there is an epidemic “this will not benefit the population if it deprives those most at need” (Looker, et al., 2006).
What would you do in this situation?
If we take this situation even further and say that Influenza was spreading globally, “would national stockpiles of Tamiflu® be shared internationally in the face of a worldwide epidemic, or should each country seek to protest only its own people directly?” (Looker, et al., 2006).
Replace Influenza with COVID-19, and this is a situation that many have directly or indirectly faced.
“Individual-level benefits are often tangible, direct and characterised by a degree of certainty, whereas population benefits can be diffuse, come via circuitous unseen pathways and their eventual value may be less certain” (Looker, et al., 2006).
“In which of these instances should collective benefit be prioritised even where this means curtailing individual freedom? What consideration should be given to what an individual ‘wants’ as opposed to what is good for her or good for everyone else? Economists, epidemiologists and policy-makers may find themselves naturally considering the population and maximising what is best overall, minimising loss of life, maximising benefit per cost and so on. But from an ethical or philosophical standpoint, that misses the importance of preserving individual freedom” (Looker, et al., 2006).
In the context of individual freedom and collective responsibility, how might design further explore, understand, and develop balance between the two? And in the context of personal finance and wellbeing, where does this balance lie?
References:
Looker, K., Hallett, T. (2006). Individual freedom versus collective responsibility: too many rights make a wrong? Emerg Themes Epidemiol, 3(14). doi:10.1186/1742-7622-3-14
