首页> 外文期刊>The International journal of drug policy >Withholding differential risk information on legal consumer nicotine/tobacco products: The public health ethics of health information quarantines
【24h】

Withholding differential risk information on legal consumer nicotine/tobacco products: The public health ethics of health information quarantines

机译:保留有关合法消费尼古丁/烟草产品的差异风险信息:健康信息检疫所的公共卫生道德

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The United States provides an example of a country with (a) legal tobaccoicotine products (e.g., snus, other smokeless tobacco, cigarettes) differing greatly in risks to health and (b) respected health information websites that continue to omit or provide incorrect differential risk information. Concern for the principles of individual rights, health literacy, and personal autonomy (making decisions for oneself), which are key principles of public health ethics, has been countered by utilitarian arguments for the use of misleading or limited information to protect public health overall. We argue that omitting key health relevant information for current or prospective consumers represents a kind of quarantine of health relevant information. As with disease quarantines, the coercive effects of quarantining information on differential risks need to be justified, not merely by fears of net negative public health effects, but by convincing evidence that such measures are actually warranted, that public health overall is in imminent danger and that the danger is sufficient to override principles of individual autonomy. Omitting such health-relevant information for consumers of such products effectively blindfolds them and impairs their making informed personal choices. Moral psychological issues that treat all tobaccoicotine products similarly may also be influencing the reluctance to inform on differential risks. In countries where tobaccoicotine products are legally sold and also differ greatly in disease risks compared to cigarettes (e.g., smokeless tobacco and vape), science-based, comprehensible, and actionable health information (consistent with health literacy principles) on differential risks should be available and only reconsidered if it is established that this information is causing losses to population health overall. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
机译:美国提供了这样一个国家的例子:(a)合法的烟草/尼古丁产品(例如,鼻烟,其他无烟烟草,香烟)在健康风险方面存在很大差异,并且(b)受到尊重的健康信息网站继续遗漏或提供不正确的信息差异风险信息。出于对个人权利,健康素养和个人自主权(自己做出决定)原则的关注,这是公共卫生道德的关键原则,但功利主义的论点反驳了使用误导性或有限信息来整体保护公共卫生的功利论点。我们认为,省略当前或潜在消费者的关键健康相关信息代表了一种与健康相关信息的隔离。与疾病隔离一样,隔离信息对差异风险的强制作用不仅需要担心对公共卫生净负面影响的理由,而且还必须要有说服力的证据表明确实有必要采取此类措施,证明公共卫生总体上处于危险之中,危险足以推翻个人自治的原则。为此类产品的消费者省略与健康相关的信息会有效地使他们蒙住眼睛,并损害他们做出明智的个人选择的能力。同样对待所有烟草/尼古丁产品的道德心理问题也可能影响不愿告知差异风险的因素。在合法销售烟草/尼古丁产品且与香烟相比(例如无烟烟草和vape)在疾病风险上也有很大差异的国家,应基于科学,可理解且可行的健康信息(符合健康素养原则)来区分风险可以使用,并且只有在确定此信息对整体人口健康造成损失的情况下,才重新考虑。 (C)2016作者。由Elsevier B.V.发布

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号