The focus of this paper is public health law and ethics, and the analytic framework advanced in the report Public health: ethical issues by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The author criticises the perceived problems found with liberal models associated with Millian political philosophy and questions the Report’s attempt to add to such theoretical frameworks. The author suggests a stronger theoretical account that the Council could have adopted—that advanced in the works of Joseph Raz—which would have been more appropriate. Instead of seeking to justify overruling the legitimate interests of individuals in favour of society, this account holds that the interests are necessarily interwoven and thus such a conflict does not exist. It is based on an objective moral account and does not require an excessive commitment to individuals’ entitlements.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests: None.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Teaching ethics in a Masters Program in Public Health in Lithuania
- The ethics of unlinked anonymous testing of blood: views from in-depth interviews with key informants in four countries
- The Concise Argument
- Autonomy in medical ethics after O’Neill
- Bioethics in humanitarian disaster relief operations: a military perspective
- Feminism and public health ethics
- What is it to do good medical ethics? A kaleidoscope of views
- Climate change matters
- The right to public health
- Ethics in epidemiology and public health I. Technical terms