I would like to agree with Dr Hardy about coercion. I am an exercise
freak, but who can favour any fascism, including exercise fascism? If
someone doesn't want to exercise, that is his or her business. And don't
plenty of fat, soft lazy people live to healthy old age? Let's all accept
each other's ways of life and stay friends.
But Dr Hardy's criticism leads to an important question for the
ethics of public health. Can exercise-promoting public health
interventions be designed to be non-coercive? This is complex because your
coercion (restricting your motorcar or cigarette use for example) can be
my protection from your polluted air, deadly vehicle, etc.) Again, where
is the line between education and coercion? If we don't provide schoolbus
service to children who live within a certain radius, are we educating or
coercing? Also, encouraging bicycling is not necessarily totally benign.
Michael Vandeman has written about ecological damage done by mountain
bikers
(http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.htm Accessed 16th October 2004)
So it seems that any intervention aimed at encouraging one way of
life risks coercing those who prefer other ways. As I started to write
this response I wanted to join Dr Hardy's opposition to exercise fascism.
But the more one looks at the complications the more it seems that some
exercise fascism may be unavoidable if we want to improve public health.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests:
No competing interests
16 October 2004
Frank J Leavitt
Chairman, Centre for Asian and International Bioethics, Faculty of Health Sciences,
Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel
Rapid Response:
Re: Exercise Fascism
I would like to agree with Dr Hardy about coercion. I am an exercise
freak, but who can favour any fascism, including exercise fascism? If
someone doesn't want to exercise, that is his or her business. And don't
plenty of fat, soft lazy people live to healthy old age? Let's all accept
each other's ways of life and stay friends.
But Dr Hardy's criticism leads to an important question for the
ethics of public health. Can exercise-promoting public health
interventions be designed to be non-coercive? This is complex because your
coercion (restricting your motorcar or cigarette use for example) can be
my protection from your polluted air, deadly vehicle, etc.) Again, where
is the line between education and coercion? If we don't provide schoolbus
service to children who live within a certain radius, are we educating or
coercing? Also, encouraging bicycling is not necessarily totally benign.
Michael Vandeman has written about ecological damage done by mountain
bikers
(http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.htm Accessed 16th October 2004)
So it seems that any intervention aimed at encouraging one way of
life risks coercing those who prefer other ways. As I started to write
this response I wanted to join Dr Hardy's opposition to exercise fascism.
But the more one looks at the complications the more it seems that some
exercise fascism may be unavoidable if we want to improve public health.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests