Citation

Boughton BJ. J. Med. Ethics 1984; 10(4): 186-190.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1984, BMJ Publishing Group)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

6520852

PMCID

PMC1375097

Abstract

The ageing population and new technology are both increasing the cost of our free health service, and there are sound economic reasons for extending measures which reduce the diseases common to our society. But if education fails to change public attitudes towards habits such as tobacco smoking and poor diet, to what extent is the State justified in compelling us to be healthy? This issue touches on the sensitive areas of personal freedom and responsibility and involves complex cultural, historical and economic considerations. Both governments and individuals can be criticised for the way this issue has been handled in the past, and it is hoped that the examples discussed in this paper will stimulate further debate.Boughton addresses the question of when a state such as the United Kingdom is justified in intervening in personal behavior that entails health risks. He discusses examples in the areas of road safety laws requiring the wearing of seatbelts or motorcycle helmets, occupational safety codes, fluoridation of water supplies, mandatory immunization programs, and regulations related to cigarette smoking, to sports, or to the food industry. Although there are sound economic reasons for the state to promote healthful behavior, Boughton believes that compulsion is justifiable only when the public health interest and not its economic interest is at stake. Downie comments on empirical and conceptual problems associated with the ideas of 'harm to others' and 'compulsion'.

Language: en