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.
In her excellent and comprehensive article, Friesen argues that utilising personal responsibility in healthcare is problematic in several ways: (a) it is difficult to ascribe responsibility to behaviour; (b) there is a risk of prejudice and bias in deciding which behaviours a person should be held responsible for; (c) it may be ineffective at reducing health costs. In this short commentary, I will elaborate the critique of personal responsibility in health but suggest one way in which it could be used ethically. In doing so, I will introduce the concepts of reasonable risk and golden opportunity.
I previously argued that it is both difficult to disentangle responsibility and that we risk prejudice and bias in singling out behaviours that are socially disapproved of.1 So I am sympathetic to Friesen’s concerns.
I also discussed another way in which ascribing personal responsibility for health is problematic which Friesen does not discuss and which, in my view, is the most concerning and further supports her arguments. It represents a back door assault on liberalism and neutrality towards concepts of the good life. Even if one were to accurately and in an unbiased way divine the personal contribution to disease, the greatest problem would remain: those who voluntarily take on risk would be penalised. That is, such a system would be risk-averse. Those lives which avoided risk would be prioritised, while those who chose to take on risky activities in their conception of the good life would be penalised. Yet risk is necessary, both for the good life, and social progress.
Columbus, Edmund Hilary, Florence Nightingale, Ernest Hemingway and countless monumental figures in human history took risks in order to achieve something great. Should we aim for a society of trembling, teetotalling health nuts? Surely that prospect is horrific. It is horrific because it elevates health …
Funding Wellcome Trust 104848/Z/14/Z
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Associations with resident physicians' early adoption of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation
- Vaping and cardiac disease
- Correlation between biomarkers of exposure, effect and potential harm in the urine of electronic cigarette users
- Electronic cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid for patients with cancer: beliefs and behaviours of clinicians in the UK
- One of several ‘toys’ for smoking: young adult experiences with electronic cigarettes in New York City
- E-cigarette use is differentially related to smoking onset among lower risk adolescents
- Impact of electronic cigarette ever use on lung function in adults aged 45–85: a cross-sectional analysis from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
- ‘95% less harmful’? Exploring reactions to quantitative modified risk claims for snus and e-cigarettes
- Testing messages about comparative risk of electronic cigarettes and combusted cigarettes
- E-cigarette use in Canada: prevalence and patterns of use in a regulated market