Should Government Leaders be Prioritized in Hospitals?
The Philippines has been experiencing a surge in COVID cases and deaths, pushing many hospitals, especially in Metro Manila, beyond their capacities. A few politicians have also recently contracted the virus, most notably the Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque being admitted at the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) even if he is not in critical condition. The incident drew ire from many in social media asking why Roque seems to have jumped the line in the priority list for hospital admissions. Some were sympathetic to Roque, claiming that government leaders need to be prioritized for the functioning of government. So, should government leaders be prioritized in hospitals? I argue that there are no existing laws or protocols that prioritize government leaders. Most importantly, there is not enough justification for most government leaders, not in critical condition, to be prioritized in hospitals.
There is no current protocol to prioritize government leaders that have been released by the Department of Health (DOH) or any other government entity. According to the DOH Memorandum on surge capacity management, hospitals should prioritize only the severe and critical COVID cases while also facilitating the fast discharge of stable patients[1]. In the case of Harry Roque, given that he was still able to engage with the media, we could surmise that he was in a stable condition. Hence, the hospitals should not have prioritized him.
Given that such are the protocols, there must be a clear and transparent justification why certain government leaders should be prioritized. Some justifications do have merits, such as the impact and risk on government function, government stability, or national security if the official is incapacitated or dead. Additionally, there is a merit that risks on government function are more significant if the government position does not have a line of succession or takes a considerable amount of time to fill the seat. While such justification is loose, it only unequivocally applies to the President and the Vice President. It might also arguably apply to the Supreme Court Justices, the Speaker of the House, and the Senate President. Other government leaders like the Cabinet and the Presidential Spokesperson would not pose a significant risk to government function, stability, or security in case of incapacitation.
While the justification may be subject to interpretation, officials must at least be transparent. In Roque’s case, there were no explanations for why he was prioritized for admission at PGH. This lack of transparency only sows cynicism on government response on COVID, complicating the response and potentially future public health issues.
Government leaders only endanger the public by touting the rules and violating fairness. Prioritization of government leaders without clear justification is unethical and inappropriate. If government leaders, such as Roque, think that what they have done is not unethical, then it only means that they think they are better or above other citizens, which is dangerous for society. On the other hand, if they think that what they have done is unethical but still violated fairness anyway, it is admittance and co-opting to corruption in government. Yet, the sad reality is that government leaders, especially those in the executive, would not care. Such is the effect of a government that has thrown away accountability measures and is only dependent on one man’s approval. Government officials should not get away with this. Leaders must abide by the law and provide clear and transparent justification on why they should be prioritized for services, especially in a time of crisis.
1. Department of Health Interim Guidelines on Surge Capacity Management of All Health Facilities during the COVID-19 Pandemic 2020.
