Are healthful behavior change policies ever unethical?
Public health experts often assume that any policy promoting healthful behavior change is inherently and self-evidently ethical. This assumption is incorrect. This Viewpoint describes why evaluating the ethics of a policy to promote healthful behavior change should require (1) valuing consequences f...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of public health policy 2022-12, Vol.43 (4), p.685-695 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 695 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 685 |
container_title | Journal of public health policy |
container_volume | 43 |
creator | Braithwaite, R. Scott |
description | Public health experts often assume that any policy promoting healthful behavior change is inherently and self-evidently ethical. This assumption is incorrect. This Viewpoint describes why evaluating the ethics of a policy to promote healthful behavior change should require (1) valuing consequences for wellbeing proportionately to consequences for health, (2) valuing changes to the distributional equity of health and wellbeing together with their aggregate improvement, and (3) anticipating and surveilling for unintended consequences sufficiently important to offset benefits. I illustrate these three requirements through a hypothetical salt restriction policy, which is unethical if it evokes strong preferences that detract from wellbeing, disproportionately confers health benefits to those who are already healthy, or elicits unintended consequences that offset health benefits. I discuss why analogies of salt restriction mandates are inappropriate. In summary, public health decision-makers should employ more structured, explicit and comprehensive criteria when considering the ethical consequences of policies. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1057/s41271-022-00372-8 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9750897</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2729519377</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c355t-c315632b515b309febbdaffeb6497f741cbe501dd6d0b95b5343f4d7e116f46c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kTlPxDAQhS0EguX4AxQoEg1NwEcmjhsQQlwSEg1IdJbtTDZB2WSxk5X49xgWlqOg8RTzzfO8eYTsM3rMKMiTkDEuWUo5TykVkqfFGpkwmUGaAzytkwllSqZQKLlFtkN4ppQWjPNNsiVyXijBYULyc49JjaYd6mpsE4u1WTS9T1xtuikm875tXIMhwQX6ZOxwqBtn2rNdslGZNuDeZ90hj1eXDxc36d399e3F-V3qBMAQXwa54BYYWEFVhdaWpoolz5SsZMacRaCsLPOSWgUWRCaqrJTIWF5luRM75HSpOx_tDEuH3eBNq-e-mRn_qnvT6N-drqn1tF9oJYFG41Hg6FPA9y8jhkHPmuCwbU2H_Rg0l1wBU0K-o4d_0Od-9F20FynI4qmVZJHiS8r5PgSP1WoZRvV7LHoZi46x6I9YdBGHDn7aWI185RABsQRCbMXD---__5F9A5C5mJE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2754271971</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Are healthful behavior change policies ever unethical?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Braithwaite, R. Scott</creator><creatorcontrib>Braithwaite, R. Scott</creatorcontrib><description>Public health experts often assume that any policy promoting healthful behavior change is inherently and self-evidently ethical. This assumption is incorrect. This Viewpoint describes why evaluating the ethics of a policy to promote healthful behavior change should require (1) valuing consequences for wellbeing proportionately to consequences for health, (2) valuing changes to the distributional equity of health and wellbeing together with their aggregate improvement, and (3) anticipating and surveilling for unintended consequences sufficiently important to offset benefits. I illustrate these three requirements through a hypothetical salt restriction policy, which is unethical if it evokes strong preferences that detract from wellbeing, disproportionately confers health benefits to those who are already healthy, or elicits unintended consequences that offset health benefits. I discuss why analogies of salt restriction mandates are inappropriate. In summary, public health decision-makers should employ more structured, explicit and comprehensive criteria when considering the ethical consequences of policies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0197-5897</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1745-655X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1057/s41271-022-00372-8</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36289325</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Palgrave Macmillan UK</publisher><subject>Behavior ; Behavior change ; Benefits ; Calculus ; Cardiovascular disease ; Collectivism ; Decision makers ; Decision making ; Distributive justice ; Egalitarianism ; Equality and Human Rights ; Ethics ; Health care ; Health disparities ; Health Policy ; Health promotion ; Humans ; Hypertension ; Inappropriateness ; Medical Sociology ; Policies ; Policy making ; Procedural justice ; Public Health ; Salt ; Social Justice ; Social Policy ; Social Sciences ; Society ; Sociology ; Stigma ; Viewpoint ; Well being</subject><ispartof>Journal of public health policy, 2022-12, Vol.43 (4), p.685-695</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2022</rights><rights>2022. The Author(s).</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2022. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c355t-c315632b515b309febbdaffeb6497f741cbe501dd6d0b95b5343f4d7e116f46c3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4095-0030</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/s41271-022-00372-8$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41271-022-00372-8$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,12846,27866,27924,27925,30999,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36289325$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Braithwaite, R. Scott</creatorcontrib><title>Are healthful behavior change policies ever unethical?</title><title>Journal of public health policy</title><addtitle>J Public Health Pol</addtitle><addtitle>J Public Health Policy</addtitle><description>Public health experts often assume that any policy promoting healthful behavior change is inherently and self-evidently ethical. This assumption is incorrect. This Viewpoint describes why evaluating the ethics of a policy to promote healthful behavior change should require (1) valuing consequences for wellbeing proportionately to consequences for health, (2) valuing changes to the distributional equity of health and wellbeing together with their aggregate improvement, and (3) anticipating and surveilling for unintended consequences sufficiently important to offset benefits. I illustrate these three requirements through a hypothetical salt restriction policy, which is unethical if it evokes strong preferences that detract from wellbeing, disproportionately confers health benefits to those who are already healthy, or elicits unintended consequences that offset health benefits. I discuss why analogies of salt restriction mandates are inappropriate. In summary, public health decision-makers should employ more structured, explicit and comprehensive criteria when considering the ethical consequences of policies.</description><subject>Behavior</subject><subject>Behavior change</subject><subject>Benefits</subject><subject>Calculus</subject><subject>Cardiovascular disease</subject><subject>Collectivism</subject><subject>Decision makers</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Distributive justice</subject><subject>Egalitarianism</subject><subject>Equality and Human Rights</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health disparities</subject><subject>Health Policy</subject><subject>Health promotion</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hypertension</subject><subject>Inappropriateness</subject><subject>Medical Sociology</subject><subject>Policies</subject><subject>Policy making</subject><subject>Procedural justice</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Salt</subject><subject>Social Justice</subject><subject>Social Policy</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Society</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><subject>Stigma</subject><subject>Viewpoint</subject><subject>Well being</subject><issn>0197-5897</issn><issn>1745-655X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kTlPxDAQhS0EguX4AxQoEg1NwEcmjhsQQlwSEg1IdJbtTDZB2WSxk5X49xgWlqOg8RTzzfO8eYTsM3rMKMiTkDEuWUo5TykVkqfFGpkwmUGaAzytkwllSqZQKLlFtkN4ppQWjPNNsiVyXijBYULyc49JjaYd6mpsE4u1WTS9T1xtuikm875tXIMhwQX6ZOxwqBtn2rNdslGZNuDeZ90hj1eXDxc36d399e3F-V3qBMAQXwa54BYYWEFVhdaWpoolz5SsZMacRaCsLPOSWgUWRCaqrJTIWF5luRM75HSpOx_tDEuH3eBNq-e-mRn_qnvT6N-drqn1tF9oJYFG41Hg6FPA9y8jhkHPmuCwbU2H_Rg0l1wBU0K-o4d_0Od-9F20FynI4qmVZJHiS8r5PgSP1WoZRvV7LHoZi46x6I9YdBGHDn7aWI185RABsQRCbMXD---__5F9A5C5mJE</recordid><startdate>20221201</startdate><enddate>20221201</enddate><creator>Braithwaite, R. Scott</creator><general>Palgrave Macmillan UK</general><general>Palgrave Macmillan</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4095-0030</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20221201</creationdate><title>Are healthful behavior change policies ever unethical?</title><author>Braithwaite, R. Scott</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c355t-c315632b515b309febbdaffeb6497f741cbe501dd6d0b95b5343f4d7e116f46c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Behavior</topic><topic>Behavior change</topic><topic>Benefits</topic><topic>Calculus</topic><topic>Cardiovascular disease</topic><topic>Collectivism</topic><topic>Decision makers</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Distributive justice</topic><topic>Egalitarianism</topic><topic>Equality and Human Rights</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health disparities</topic><topic>Health Policy</topic><topic>Health promotion</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hypertension</topic><topic>Inappropriateness</topic><topic>Medical Sociology</topic><topic>Policies</topic><topic>Policy making</topic><topic>Procedural justice</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Salt</topic><topic>Social Justice</topic><topic>Social Policy</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Society</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><topic>Stigma</topic><topic>Viewpoint</topic><topic>Well being</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Braithwaite, R. Scott</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of public health policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Braithwaite, R. Scott</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Are healthful behavior change policies ever unethical?</atitle><jtitle>Journal of public health policy</jtitle><stitle>J Public Health Pol</stitle><addtitle>J Public Health Policy</addtitle><date>2022-12-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>43</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>685</spage><epage>695</epage><pages>685-695</pages><issn>0197-5897</issn><eissn>1745-655X</eissn><abstract>Public health experts often assume that any policy promoting healthful behavior change is inherently and self-evidently ethical. This assumption is incorrect. This Viewpoint describes why evaluating the ethics of a policy to promote healthful behavior change should require (1) valuing consequences for wellbeing proportionately to consequences for health, (2) valuing changes to the distributional equity of health and wellbeing together with their aggregate improvement, and (3) anticipating and surveilling for unintended consequences sufficiently important to offset benefits. I illustrate these three requirements through a hypothetical salt restriction policy, which is unethical if it evokes strong preferences that detract from wellbeing, disproportionately confers health benefits to those who are already healthy, or elicits unintended consequences that offset health benefits. I discuss why analogies of salt restriction mandates are inappropriate. In summary, public health decision-makers should employ more structured, explicit and comprehensive criteria when considering the ethical consequences of policies.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Palgrave Macmillan UK</pub><pmid>36289325</pmid><doi>10.1057/s41271-022-00372-8</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4095-0030</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0197-5897 |
ispartof | Journal of public health policy, 2022-12, Vol.43 (4), p.685-695 |
issn | 0197-5897 1745-655X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9750897 |
source | MEDLINE; PAIS Index; SpringerNature Journals; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA) |
subjects | Behavior Behavior change Benefits Calculus Cardiovascular disease Collectivism Decision makers Decision making Distributive justice Egalitarianism Equality and Human Rights Ethics Health care Health disparities Health Policy Health promotion Humans Hypertension Inappropriateness Medical Sociology Policies Policy making Procedural justice Public Health Salt Social Justice Social Policy Social Sciences Society Sociology Stigma Viewpoint Well being |
title | Are healthful behavior change policies ever unethical? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T02%3A52%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Are%20healthful%20behavior%20change%20policies%20ever%20unethical?&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20public%20health%20policy&rft.au=Braithwaite,%20R.%20Scott&rft.date=2022-12-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=685&rft.epage=695&rft.pages=685-695&rft.issn=0197-5897&rft.eissn=1745-655X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1057/s41271-022-00372-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2729519377%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2754271971&rft_id=info:pmid/36289325&rfr_iscdi=true |