In this section of the paper, the neglect of these principles, especially the prioritization of the worst off, in public healthcare decision‐making is examined in relation to three problems within the Philippines in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic: paternalistic decision‐making complicated by false information, failure to be mindful of literacy levels, and failure to account for language and other barriers. The first problem is paternalistic decision‐making or deciding without consulting stakeholders. The Philippine government has needed to act swiftly to contain the spread of the disease. It has had to enforce quickly crafted rules that could not wait for extended rounds of consultations and confidence building. Quite understandably, the existence of a pandemic emergency compels decision‐makers and government officials to act unequivocally and resolutely. However, emergencies also tend to trigger a highly paternalistic stance that can have the effect of reducing human beings to mere recipients of information. Failing to heed instructions for dealing with the pandemic, people may be shunted aside for being obstacles to the implementation of a necessary emergency response. Yet, firm and decisive action is not necessarily incompatible with a compassionate and lawful consideration for the rights of citizens regardless of their level of education and health literacy. Emergencies should inspire creativity in finding ways to implement laws and rules decisively without showing disrespect for fellow human beings who may not have the means or opportunity to understand the full import of new laws and rules. The arrogant display of power by authorities under these circumstances reflects a paternalistic stance that can deteriorate into a disregard for the interests of the cared for whom they need to protect in the first place.