Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2006;332:279 (4 February), doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7536.279
John Gillies, general practitioner1, Mark Sheehan, lecturer2
1 Selkirk Health Centre, Selkirk TD7 4LQ, 2 Centre for Professional Ethics, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG
Correspondence to: J Gillies john.gillies@selkirkhc.borders.scot.nhs.uk
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Many would argue, in a case like this,1 that individuals should be held accountable for the lifestyle choices that they make. People should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit, but when this goes against the generally received (medical) wisdom society is required to do only a limited amount to redress the consequences of those choices. So, when someone freely chooses to live life in a particular way, he, not society must shoulder the responsibility for those choices.2
This response is powerful, but two points can be made against its use in this case. The first raises questions about the freedom of Mr Bond's choices, the second calls into question the underlying resources monopolised by those who make such lifestyle choices.
Firstly, this response is legitimate only if the lifestyle choices in question are freely made. We do not typically hold people responsible for choices that they
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?