28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Against Moral Responsibilisation of Health: Prudential Responsibility and Health Promotion

      research-article
      , ,
      Public Health Ethics
      Oxford University Press

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In this article, we outline a novel approach to understanding the role of responsibility in health promotion. Efforts to tackle chronic disease have led to an emphasis on personal responsibility and the identification of ways in which people can ‘take responsibility’ for their health by avoiding risk factors such as smoking and over-eating. We argue that the extent to which agents can be considered responsible for their health-related behaviour is limited, and as such, state health promotion which assumes certain forms of moral responsibility should (in general) be avoided. This indicates that some approaches to health promotion ought not to be employed. We suggest, however, that another form of responsibility might be more appropriately identified. This is based on the claim that agents (in general) have prudential reasons to maintain their health, in order to pursue those things which make their lives go well—i.e. that maintenance of a certain level of health is (all-things-considered) rational for many agents, given their pleasures and plans. On this basis, we propose that agents have a self-regarding prudential responsibility to maintain their health. We outline the implications of a prudential responsibility approach to health promotion.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Systematic review of long-term weight loss studies in obese adults: clinical significance and applicability to clinical practice.

          Obesity is a common health problem that requires a long-term care approach. We systematically reviewed long-term (> or =2 y) studies investigating dietary/lifestyle, pharmacologic, and surgical weight loss methods to assess (1) weight loss efficacy, defined by absolute weight loss and the proportion of subjects with > or =5% weight loss, (2) effects of weight loss on cardiovascular risk factors, and (3) applicability of findings from studies to everyday clinical practice. The MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials databases were searched for studies investigating the long-term efficacy of weight loss methods in overweight and obese adults. Data were extracted for (i) weight loss after 1 y (pharmacologic studies only), 2 y, 3 y, and 4 y, (ii) proportion of subjects with > or =5% weight loss at the end of follow-up, and (iii) changes (end-of follow-up minus baseline values) in blood lipids, fasting blood glucose, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Dietary/lifestyle therapy provides or =5% baseline weight is not consistently associated with improvements in cardiovascular risk factors and these benefits appear to be intervention specific and occur mainly in people with concomitant cardiovascular risk factors. Weight loss studies have methodologic limitations that restrict the applicability of findings to unselected obese people assessed in everyday clinical practice. These limitations include an inadequate study duration, large proportions of subjects lost to follow-up, a lack of an appropriate usual care group, and a lack of reporting of outcomes in high-risk subgroups. Dietary/lifestyle and pharmacologic weight loss interventions provide modest weight loss, and may improve markers of cardiovascular risk factors although these benefits occur mainly in patients with cardiovascular risks. Studies investigating weight loss have methodologic limitations that restrict the applicability of findings to obese patients assessed in clinical practice.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Effectiveness of interventions to help people stop smoking: findings from the Cochrane Library.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Personal responsibility for health as a rationing criterion: why we don't like it and why maybe we should.

              A Buyx (2008)
              Whether it is fair to use personal responsibility of patients for their own health as a rationing criterion in healthcare is a controversial matter. A host of difficulties are associated with the concept of personal responsibility in the field of medicine. These include, in particular, theoretical considerations of justice and such practical issues as multiple causal factors in medicine and freedom of health behaviour. In the article, personal responsibility is evaluated from the perspective of several theories of justice. It is argued that in a healthcare system based on both equality of opportunity and solidarity, responsible health behaviour can -- in principle -- be justifiably expected. While the practical problems associated with personal responsibility are important, they do not warrant the common knee-jerk refusal to think more deeply about responsibility for health as a means of allocating healthcare resources. In conclusion, the possibility of introducing personal responsibility as a fair rationing criterion is briefly sketched.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Public Health Ethics
                Public Health Ethics
                phe
                Public Health Ethics
                Oxford University Press
                1754-9973
                1754-9981
                July 2019
                25 May 2019
                25 May 2019
                : 12
                : 2
                : 114-129
                Affiliations
                Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Rebecca C. H. Brown, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Suite 8 Littlegate House, 16/17 St Ebbe’s Street, Oxford OX1 1PT, UK. Tel.: +44 (0)1865 286893; Email: rebecca.brown@ 123456philosophy.ox.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8023-1092
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1691-6403
                Article
                phz006
                10.1093/phe/phz006
                6655424
                31384301
                4865d2e4-fa0e-4586-bf6d-5d1554f83823
                © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 16
                Funding
                Funded by: Wellcome Trust 10.13039/100010269
                Award ID: WT 104848
                Award ID: WT 203132/Z/16/Z
                Categories
                Original Articles

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article