Smoking Ban
moking Ban
THE ROLE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY; AND AN APPLICATION OF THESE PRINCIPLES TO THE SMOKING BAN
INTRODUCTION:
The formation of public health policy involves a careful balancing exercise between the needs and rights of different groups of people. Due to the very nature of public health, creating legislation in this area involves the consideration of a number of often competing factors. These include, but are not limited to, health impacts, economic issues, enforceability, public support, the effect on human rights, and current international practice. The impact of each of these factors on public health decisions is often debated, and one of the most controversial areas is the question of the role of individual human rights. It is this tension that we must address.
Before it is possible to undertake any meaningful discussion about the legitimacy of public health policy, it will be necessary to first examine the exact role and meaning of public health. It is clear that “much controversy persists as to the appropriate scope of public health action.”[1] As noted by Mark Rothstein, the proper scope of public health can be more easily determined if there is “greater clarity and consensus on the meaning of public health.”[2]
Having discussed the definition of public health, we are naturally led to consider the controversial aspects of health policy – specifically, the role of human rights. Public health has the potential to infringe on personal choices. The exact place of human rights in health policy is unclear; attempts to control individual behaviour for ‘the common good’ are often seen as encroaching on citizens’ autonomy. However, it is clear that no right is absolute[3], and therefore there must be principles that highlight when it would be appropriate to trump one set of rights in order to protect another. John Stuart Mill’s famous dicta states, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a
THE ROLE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY; AND AN APPLICATION OF THESE PRINCIPLES TO THE SMOKING BAN
INTRODUCTION:
The formation of public health policy involves a careful balancing exercise between the needs and rights of different groups of people. Due to the very nature of public health, creating legislation in this area involves the consideration of a number of often competing factors. These include, but are not limited to, health impacts, economic issues, enforceability, public support, the effect on human rights, and current international practice. The impact of each of these factors on public health decisions is often debated, and one of the most controversial areas is the question of the role of individual human rights. It is this tension that we must address.
Before it is possible to undertake any meaningful discussion about the legitimacy of public health policy, it will be necessary to first examine the exact role and meaning of public health. It is clear that “much controversy persists as to the appropriate scope of public health action.”[1] As noted by Mark Rothstein, the proper scope of public health can be more easily determined if there is “greater clarity and consensus on the meaning of public health.”[2]
Having discussed the definition of public health, we are naturally led to consider the controversial aspects of health policy – specifically, the role of human rights. Public health has the potential to infringe on personal choices. The exact place of human rights in health policy is unclear; attempts to control individual behaviour for ‘the common good’ are often seen as encroaching on citizens’ autonomy. However, it is clear that no right is absolute[3], and therefore there must be principles that highlight when it would be appropriate to trump one set of rights in order to protect another. John Stuart Mill’s famous dicta states, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a