Proportionality in Public Health Law

Abstract As part of the COVID-19 pandemic management, public healthcare workers in Singapore were not permitted to travel for personal or professional reasons. The travel suspension raised potential questions in terms of the proportionality of pandemic measures, whereby certain rights were limited for the greater benefit of the society. Healthcare workers resigned in greater numbers than usual during the pandemic restriction period, which tested the balance between their professional obligations and personal interests. This case study examines the extent to which restrictive measures are necessary, legitimate, effective, and proportionate for the COVID-19 pandemic in order to provide insights for future pandemics. The discussion pertains to the context of Singapore but is relevant for other countries with migrant healthcare workers in the workforce and countries with a limited capacity to care for patients (whether during a pandemic or not), resulting in policy decisions that healthcare workers may perceive as severe. Reference is made to available governmental guidelines, international standards, and relevant literature. Arguments favoring or against the restrictions are examined in the context of proportionality in pandemic management. This case study contributes to the broader pandemic discourse affecting healthcare workers and their continued struggles with balancing competing priorities and interests, both professional and personal. Identifying proportionate measures will result in a more defensible ethical and legal decision affecting the continuity of the profession in caring for the public in times of crisis.