The COVID-19 pandemic forced governments worldwide to make difficult policy decisions that tested the balance between individual autonomy and collective responsibility. In a recent episode of the Open Minds Podcast, I sat down with Dr. Kerry Bowman, a Canadian bioethicist and environmentalist, to explore the ethical dilemmas surrounding vaccine mandates and public health policies.
Dr. Bowman explains that Canada, a country deeply rooted in the principle of individual autonomy, saw a dramatic ethical shift during the pandemic. “Our foundation is one of autonomy, reflected in the Canada Health Act,” he notes. However, pandemic policies—such as vaccine passports—moved Canada away from this individual rights-based approach toward a more utilitarian framework, focusing on the greatest good for the largest number of people.
While vaccines played a critical role in reducing severe illness, mandates and passports also created deep societal divisions. According to Dr. Bowman, the intense public pressure for universal compliance overshadowed legitimate concerns, such as those of pregnant healthcare workers unsure of vaccine effects on their unborn children. “To criticize a woman expecting a child under those circumstances is really extreme,” he argues, emphasizing the need for more nuance in public health discussions.
The conversation also touched on the broader impact of pandemic restrictions on marginalized communities, including those with cognitive disabilities and Indigenous populations. Many individuals faced systemic barriers to accessing vaccinations or complying with stringent regulations, often due to communication difficulties or historical mistrust of government medical interventions. Studies show that Indigenous communities have historically been subjected to unethical medical testing, further complicating vaccine uptake (Bowman, 2025).
Social determinants of health also played a critical role in medical assistance in dying (MAiD). According to Canada’s Fifth Annual MAiD Report, a significant number of individuals sought euthanasia not due to terminal illness but because of social isolation and a lack of meaningful engagement (Government of Canada, 2024). This raises ethical concerns about whether expanding MAiD eligibility, particularly for mental illness, could be addressing a symptom of systemic social neglect rather than true medical need.
Dr. Bowman warns that governments must be cautious when justifying the suspension of civil liberties in times of crisis. “If your moral foundation shifts depending on circumstances, do you really have a solid moral foundation at all?” he asks. This question remains central as we evaluate Canada’s pandemic response and prepare for future public health crises.
