Policymakers often justify measures that may limit individual autonomy by appealing to the broader collective good. From a utilitarian perspective, the aim is to maximize well-being, even if it means temporarily restricting some freedoms to protect public health. However, this justification is ethically contentious.

Critics argue from a deontological standpoint that individual rights and freedoms are inviolable; any imposition that compromises personal autonomy, especially if it leads to physical or psychological harm, raises serious moral concerns. Moreover, the reliability of evidence regarding both benefits and harms of such measures is a critical factor. When interventions are claimed to cause harm, the ethical balance shifts and demands a re-evaluation of whether the ends truly justify the means.

In essence, the tension lies in reconciling the need to protect collective health with the commitment to respect individual rights—a debate that continues to evolve as new evidence and ethical analyses emerge.