首页> 外文OA文献 >Paternalism, Self-Governance, and Public Health: The Case of E-Cigarettes
【2h】

Paternalism, Self-Governance, and Public Health: The Case of E-Cigarettes

机译:家长作风,自治和公共卫生:电子香烟的案例

摘要

This article develops a normative framework for assessing public health laws, using the regulation of e-cigarettes as a case study. Although e-cigarettes are likely far less dangerous to individual users than traditional cigarettes, it remains uncertain whether their proliferation will lead to a reduction of smoking-related disease and deaths or to increased morbidity and mortality. This scientific uncertainty presents regulators with difficult challenges in determining whether and how to regulate e-cigarettes. This article presents a normative framework for analyzing such questions by offering three justifications for public health laws: impaired agency, harm to others, and self-governance. Each justification responds to the common charge that public health laws are impermissibly paternalistic. The self-governance rationale, which is the most robust, and most reflective of public health’s own population perspective, has been the least theorized. This article develops that theory, examining the basis for the justification as well as its limitations. The article then applies its normative framework to the regulation of e-cigarettes, focusing on the FDA’s so-called deeming regulations, which at the time the article was written were pending but have since been promulgated in a substantially similar form. The article supports the FDA’s ultimate decision to ban the sales of e-cigarettes to minors and to require the disclosure of warning labels based upon the impaired agency rationale. However, the scientific uncertainty renders the harm rationale inadequate. As a result, the regulations’ pre-market review requirement must rely on the self-governance rationale for its normative justification. Given the lack of clear legislative guidance and political engagement, the article concludes that the pre-market review provisions are normatively problematic: if public health advocates want to claim the mantle of self-governance, they must take it seriously.
机译:本文以电子烟的监管为例,建立了评估公共卫生法律的规范性框架。尽管电子烟对个人使用者的危害远不如传统香烟,但仍不确定电子烟的扩散是否会导致减少与吸烟有关的疾病和死亡,或增加发病率和死亡率。这种科学上的不确定性给监管者带来了决定是否以及如何监管电子烟的艰巨挑战。本文通过提供公共卫生法律的三个理由提供了一个分析此类问题的规范框架:代理受损,对他人的伤害和自治。每个理由都对公共健康法不允许家长式作风的普遍指控做出回应。自治理论最不可靠,也最能反映公共卫生自己的人口观点,但理论上却最少。本文发展了这一理论,研究了辩护的依据及其局限性。然后,本文将其规范性框架应用于电子烟的法规,重点关注FDA的所谓的“视同法规”,该法规在撰写本文时尚未定案,但自那时以来以实质上类似的形式颁布。该文章支持FDA的最终决定,即禁止向未成年人销售电子烟,并根据受损的代理机构依据要求公开警告标签。但是,科学上的不确定性使危害论据不足。因此,该法规的上市前审查要求必须以自治理由为规范依据。鉴于缺乏明确的立法指导和政治参与,该文章得出结论,上市前审查条款在规范上存在问题:如果公共卫生倡导者想主张自治,他们必须认真对待。

著录项

  • 作者

    Parmet Wendy E;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2016
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

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