As Queensland’s Chief Medical Officer during the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Jeanette Young became a central figure in Australia’s public health response. Her strict enforcement of Queensland’s border closures made her a divisive figure, particularly in cases where individuals were denied entry for urgent medical or compassionate reasons. Now, as the Governor of Queensland, her past decisions have resurfaced in discussions, raising the question: did Dr. Young’s strict public health policies contradict her responsibilities under the Hippocratic Oath?
The Hippocratic Oath, traditionally recited by physicians, emphasizes a duty to “do no harm” and places patient welfare as a core principle. However, Dr. Young’s public health role during the pandemic introduced a complex ethical dimension, where prioritizing the collective safety of Queenslanders sometimes led to difficult decisions that had severe impacts on individuals in need. Here, we look at several contentious cases that highlight this ethical tension, sparking debate about whether her actions could be seen as a breach of her medical oath.
The COVID Border Crisis: Public Health vs. Individual Welfare
Queensland maintained some of the strictest border controls in Australia, with policies that often prevented interstate travel, even for those in need of urgent medical treatment or with dying family members. Dr. Young defended these policies as necessary to protect Queenslanders from COVID-19, especially during periods of high transmission in neighboring states. Yet, in several high-profile cases, her enforcement of these policies was seen as excessively rigid and lacking compassion, drawing public criticism and questions about whether her decisions breached the fundamental principles of medicine.
1. The Sarah Caisip Funeral Case
Sarah Caisip, a young woman from Canberra, was denied a border exemption to attend her father’s funeral in Queensland, despite Canberra being a low-risk area at the time. Although Caisip pleaded with authorities and agreed to quarantine, Dr. Young’s office only allowed her to visit her father’s body after the funeral under police supervision. The public outcry was immediate, with then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison even intervening on her behalf, though unsuccessfullyying Caisip’s request, Dr. Young cited a strict need to protect Queenslanders from potential COVID-19 spread, but critics argued this decision inflicted unnecessary emotional harm, prioritizing rigid public health policy over compassion. Caisip’s case became emblematic of the contradictions in COVID-19 policy: while preventing transmission was critical, should it have come at the expense of family unity during grief? Many felt this decision diverged from the “do no harm” principle by failing to balance public health needs with individual well-being.
2. Mark and Anneli Kilian: Denied Last Goodbye
Mark and Anneli Kilian, an elderly couple from the United States, faced similar difficulties. Despite being fully vaccinated and willing to quarantine, they were denied entry to Queensland to see Mark’s father, who was terminally ill with pancreatic cancer. Dr. Young’s office upheld the denial until Mark’s father passed away .
The dtracted widespread criticism as another case where public health policy seemingly outweighed individual compassion and the basic human right to say goodbye to loved ones. Here again, the ethical challenge lay in balancing the collective good against the emotional and mental impact on individuals. Critics questioned if the potential risk of transmission outweighed the immediate need for compassionate exemptions, seeing this as a potential violation of the Hippocratic Oath’s mandate to do no harm.
3. Separated Babies and Denied Medical Care
Queensland’s border restrictions also impacted medical cases, particularly involving newborns and urgent treatments. In one high-profile incident, twins born prematurely in New South Wales were separated from their parents due to Queensland’s travel restrictions. The parents faced significant delays in seeing their babies, who were in different hospitals, because of cross-border policies .
Additionally, ’s strict borders led to cases where critically ill individuals from neighboring states were denied entry for timely treatment. In one instance, a young cancer patient requiring specialized care was unable to access Queensland hospitals, resulting in delays that impacted her health . Such cases of denied medment fueled criticism that the decisions were contrary to the medical duty to prioritize patient welfare, as delays in care potentially jeopardized their well-being.
4. A Question of Priorities: Protecting the Public vs. Serving Individuals
Dr. Young’s defense of these policies often rested on her duty to safeguard the broader population. “The decisions I made were about preventing the spread of COVID-19 and protecting the lives of Queenslanders,” she stated in interviews following public backlash . As Queensland’s Chief Medical Offresponsibilities were indeed broader than those of a practicing physician. However, balancing this public health duty with the ethical obligations of individual care introduces a significant tension.
During the pandemic, the line between medical and political decision-making blurred, and Dr. Young’s dual role complicated the application of the Hippocratic Oath. While her decisions served the goal of community safety, the lack of compassion in individual cases attracted criticism for their perceived insensitivity. Public health experts argued that the stringent application of policy without consideration for individual circumstances could be seen as inflexible, potentially leading to harmful outcomes for individuals.
The Ethics of Doing No Harm in a Pandemic
Dr. Young’s decisions invite a complex debate: can a health official’s strict adherence to public health policy justify actions that might cause harm to individuals? For many, these cases highlight a perceived contradiction between the Hippocratic Oath and Dr. Young’s actions. While her role required tough decisions to contain the virus, her perceived unwillingness to allow compassionate exemptions calls into question the ethical balance between collective safety and individual welfare.
As Dr. Young moves into her role as Governor of Queensland, the ethical legacy of her time as Chief Medical Officer remains a topic of public discussion. For healthcare professionals and ethicists, these cases offer valuable lessons on the challenges of upholding the Hippocratic Oath in a public health crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic pushed medical ethics into new terrain, forcing difficult questions about how best to serve the public good without compromising the rights and needs of individuals.
And worryingly, an Australian Honour, the Companion of the Order of Australia
Dr. Jeanette Young’s receipt of the AC (Companion of the Order of Australia) has indeed sparked debate, particularly when contrasted with recent controversies, such as the case of Mike Pezzullo. Pezzullo, a senior public servant and former Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, was embroiled in scandal and subsequently had his Order of Australia revoked due to alleged misuse of his office. Many Australians have since questioned the consistency of the nation’s honors system, especially in light of Dr. Young’s legacy and the negative outcomes of her COVID-era policies.
In Pezzullo’s case, his actions were deemed a breach of public trust, leading to a swift revocation of his honor. Critics argue that similar principles of accountability should apply to Dr. Young’s decisions. Her role as Chief Medical Officer was also one of immense public trust, yet certain contentious outcomes—such as denied access to medical care, separated families, and rejected compassionate pleas—were seen by many as instances of ethical overreach or a rigid adherence to policy at the expense of human welfare. These cases drew significant public scrutiny, particularly as they involved personal hardships and, in some cases, lasting psychological harm.
A Double Standard? Examining the Honors Process
The contrast between Pezzullo’s revoked honor and Dr. Young’s AC award raises questions about the criteria for Australia’s honors system. If honors can be rescinded for breaches of public trust, one could argue that outcomes resulting in significant negative impacts on individuals might likewise call into question an honoree’s suitability. Both Pezzullo and Young wielded substantial influence, but while Pezzullo’s actions were seen as a failure of integrity, Young’s decisions, while lawful, have nonetheless led to perceived breaches of compassion and ethical responsibility.
The Role of Outcomes in Recognizing Public Service
Dr. Young’s AC award reflects the national honors system’s recognition of “distinguished service of a high degree to Australia or humanity at large.” Yet, when the outcome of that service includes negative consequences—cases where individual well-being was overlooked or outright denied—some argue this recognition may not fully align with the values Australians expect of their public officials. The AC is meant to honor contributions that uplift and benefit society, but should it also account for harm caused by an official’s actions, especially when alternatives or adjustments might have been possible?
The Pezzullo case set a recent precedent, highlighting how public servants entrusted with power can be stripped of honors when trust is violated. For many Australians, Dr. Young’s receipt of the AC despite publicized harms feels contradictory to this precedent. The debate thus reflects a broader societal question: should the honors system incorporate not only achievement and impact but also a review of the ethical implications of an honoree’s decisions?
Conclusion
Dr. Young’s AC award, viewed alongside the outcomes of her COVID policies and Pezzullo’s revoked honor, raises a critical question about accountability within the Order of Australia: should high honors account for both positive achievements and ethical controversies? For those affected by her policies, this inconsistency resonates as a contradiction, spotlighting a potential double standard in how public service is rewarded or reprimanded. This juxtaposition reflects not only a public debate on honors but also a broader societal reckoning with how we value ethics, compassion, and accountability in public service.
References
- “Queensland’s Strict COVID Border Policies Deny Daughter’s Funeral Plea,” The Guardian, 2020.
- “Kilians Denied Final Farewell to Father,” ABC News, 2021.
- “Queensland Border Closure Separates Parents from Premature Twins,” Sydney Morning Herald, 2020.
- “Cancer Patient Denied Treatment in Queensland,” The Australian, 2020.
- Interview with Dr. Jeanette Young, 7 News Queensland, 2021.