Context-specificity is an inadequate ethical justification of coercive public health policies

This commentary on Johnson et al. (2024) offers evidence that context-specificity is an inadequate justification for coercive public health policies. Contexts – or guiding narratives – can be created, defined, and used in ways that are contrary to human dignity, timeless wisdom, or universal values. Personal autonomy and common good are intrinsically intertwined. Human beings are relational creatures who influence and are influenced by each other and the world around us, making us particularly vulnerable to indirect coercion via context-driven psychosocial influences. The role of the behavioral sciences in coercion is briefly considered. Context-specific arguments often reflect the biases of the arguers. Unacknowledged biases may account for the differences between how Johnson et al. (2024) discussed the ethics of mandatory HIV testing in Malawi and how they discussed the ethics of COVID-19 mandates.