Abstract
The purpose of this article is to assess the impact of the UK government’s response to the Covid-19 outbreak from a human rights perspective, particularly its apparent tension with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in relation to non-Covid-19 patients whose lives were put at risk by not being able to attend appointments and treatments for pre-existing conditions and illnesses. The UK has also rejected the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union with the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018, which will leave the population even more exposed to potential human rights violations. This seems to be a direct consequence of the narrative and slogan employed by the government: “Stay Home; Protect the NHS; Save Lives”. Other potentially threatened categories, the NHS staff and prisoners are also mentioned in the same context. The latter have already launched a judicial review application along the same lines: Article 2 of the ECHR and the due regard duty stemming from the Equality Act 2010. The NHS staff were directly at risk, and evidence was emerging almost on a daily basis that implied authorities’ responsibility for the shortage of personal protective equipment and testing kits. While there have been a number of discussions on other issues in relation to the lockdown and the strategy directly or indirectly impacting human rights, it appears that no discussion on the impact of the strategy for non-Covid-19 patients and other categories from a human rights perspective has taken place. This gap in analyses and literature merits the present analysis.
Highlights
Introduction“The state finds its highest expression in protecting rights, and should be grateful to the citizen who, in demanding justice, gives it the opportunity to defend justice, which after all is the basic raison d’etre of the State” (Calamandrei 1992)
The purpose of this article is to assess the impact of the UK government’s response to the
The purpose of this article is to examine the impact of the lockdown and the related measures on non-Covid-19 patients, the healthcare workers, and prisoners as well as an increasing tension between the government’s response and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in that respect
Summary
“The state finds its highest expression in protecting rights, and should be grateful to the citizen who, in demanding justice, gives it the opportunity to defend justice, which after all is the basic raison d’etre of the State” (Calamandrei 1992). The outbreak of Covid-19 at the beginning of 2020 has resulted in an unprecedented response by governments throughout the world that affected population at large at a scale unknown in recent history. The focus of this article is on the compatibility of the UK government’s response, primarily the lockdown and its consequential developments with the right to life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The purpose of this article is to examine the impact of the lockdown and the related measures on non-Covid-19 patients, the healthcare workers, and prisoners as well as an increasing tension between the government’s response and Article 2 of the ECHR in that respect. On 24 March 2020, the UK government introduced lockdown measures in an effort to slow the rate of infection of Covid-19 in the country, shielding the National Health System (NHS) and its expected capacity to respond. For the purpose of this article, a question may be posed as to what the individuals can possibly do to protect the system that is established to protect themselves, especially those with terminal illnesses, cancer sufferers, patients with cardiovascular diseases, stroke sufferers, etc
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
