It is surprising that Simon Chapman finds it 'unethical' that society should be seeking to reduce the prevalence of smoking. Does it matter that arguments in favour of greater restrictions on where people can smoke 'go well beyond the direct health effects'?
'Outdoor bans based on communities' amenity preferences are not about public health but are akin to ordinances about playing music in parks or bans on public nudity and littering.' Surely this is a valid choice for society to make.
'Paternalistic, for-your-own-good laws about seatbelts and motorcycle helmets involve trivial restrictions on liberty.' I'm sure many would beg to differ in describing these restrictions as trivial. However, we accept that government is acting in our best interests. What about laws banning the personal use of heroin and other hard drugs? Are they trivial?
In fact it could be argued that banning smoking altogether would be a 'trivial restriction' as it would only affect a small proportion of the population for a single generation.
The most compelling policy suggestion is that of banning the sale of tobacco products to those born after 2000, as supported by the BMA. This would indeed represent a trivial intrusion into personal liberties as existing smokers would be untouched by the sinister paternalism of government and would be free to continue smoking right up to their early graves.
Given the current concerns regarding the safety or otherwise of e-cigarettes, perhaps the above policy could be extended to include these products also.
Smoking isn't purely a matter of personal choice and doesn't just affect current smokers: the continued tolerance of smoking in our society also exposes the next generation to the risk of addiction and its undisputed harms. That is a concern for us all. It is entirely legitimate for government to take steps to mitigate the problem on our behalf, and for public health practitioners to contribute to the debate. Unless we desire a state of anarchy it seems unnecessarily dramatic to describe any laws as 'coercive.'
Competing interests:
No competing interests
01 March 2015
Dominic C Horne
GP and Honorary Senior Lecturer
Institute of Health and Society, University of Worcester WR2 6AJ
Rapid Response:
The Ethics of Public Health
It is surprising that Simon Chapman finds it 'unethical' that society should be seeking to reduce the prevalence of smoking. Does it matter that arguments in favour of greater restrictions on where people can smoke 'go well beyond the direct health effects'?
'Outdoor bans based on communities' amenity preferences are not about public health but are akin to ordinances about playing music in parks or bans on public nudity and littering.' Surely this is a valid choice for society to make.
'Paternalistic, for-your-own-good laws about seatbelts and motorcycle helmets involve trivial restrictions on liberty.' I'm sure many would beg to differ in describing these restrictions as trivial. However, we accept that government is acting in our best interests. What about laws banning the personal use of heroin and other hard drugs? Are they trivial?
In fact it could be argued that banning smoking altogether would be a 'trivial restriction' as it would only affect a small proportion of the population for a single generation.
The most compelling policy suggestion is that of banning the sale of tobacco products to those born after 2000, as supported by the BMA. This would indeed represent a trivial intrusion into personal liberties as existing smokers would be untouched by the sinister paternalism of government and would be free to continue smoking right up to their early graves.
Given the current concerns regarding the safety or otherwise of e-cigarettes, perhaps the above policy could be extended to include these products also.
Smoking isn't purely a matter of personal choice and doesn't just affect current smokers: the continued tolerance of smoking in our society also exposes the next generation to the risk of addiction and its undisputed harms. That is a concern for us all. It is entirely legitimate for government to take steps to mitigate the problem on our behalf, and for public health practitioners to contribute to the debate. Unless we desire a state of anarchy it seems unnecessarily dramatic to describe any laws as 'coercive.'
Competing interests: No competing interests