Re: Margaret McCartney: The government’s plan to blame and shame people for having disease
Margaret raises important issues, and seems to be against naming and shaming. But her reasoning leaves me confused. Surely everyone is against "coercing [anyone] to accept ineffective medicine". But is she in favour if it were effective ? Is her objection simply that trials have not been done ?
My own view is that people, even criminals in gaol, are entitled to food shelter and clothing. I would give beggars and drug addicts food shelter and clothing. But I would baulk at giving them money for them to spend on drugs or alcohol. I believe this position is ethically distinct from punishing or shaming people for unhealthy choices, or blaming them for the mess they are in. It aims to help without harming.
Rapid Response:
Re: Margaret McCartney: The government’s plan to blame and shame people for having disease
Margaret raises important issues, and seems to be against naming and shaming. But her reasoning leaves me confused. Surely everyone is against "coercing [anyone] to accept ineffective medicine". But is she in favour if it were effective ? Is her objection simply that trials have not been done ?
My own view is that people, even criminals in gaol, are entitled to food shelter and clothing. I would give beggars and drug addicts food shelter and clothing. But I would baulk at giving them money for them to spend on drugs or alcohol. I believe this position is ethically distinct from punishing or shaming people for unhealthy choices, or blaming them for the mess they are in. It aims to help without harming.
Competing interests: No competing interests