Jochelson Karen
The King's Fund, London, WC1 0AN, UK.
Public Health. 2006 Dec;120(12):1149-55. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2006.10.009. Epub 2006 Oct 25.
The past year has witnessed contentious debates about public health in England around smoking bans, alcohol licencing, food labelling and junk food advertising. Some people argue that any government intervention in these areas is 'nanny statist'--an unnecessary intrusion into people's lives and what they do, eat and drink. Others argue that only the state can alter the environment that shapes people's decisions and behaviour. This paper suggests that there is a strong argument to be made for government intervention to safeguard public health. Legislation brings about changes that individuals on their own cannot, and sets new standards for the public good. Rather than condemning such activity as 'nanny statist', it might be more appropriate to view it as a form of 'stewardship'. The paper draws on international evidence about alcohol use, smoking and road safety to show how taxation, advertising bans, regulations proscribing behaviour and education create a public health framework and shape individual choices towards healthier and safer behaviour.
过去一年里,英格兰围绕禁烟令、酒类许可、食品标签和垃圾食品广告展开了关于公共卫生的激烈辩论。一些人认为,政府在这些领域的任何干预都是“保姆式国家主义”——对人们生活以及他们的行为、饮食进行不必要的干涉。另一些人则认为,只有国家才能改变塑造人们决策和行为的环境。本文认为,有充分理由支持政府进行干预以保障公众健康。立法带来了个人无法独自实现的变革,并为公共利益设定了新的标准。与其将此类活动谴责为“保姆式国家主义”,将其视为一种“管理”形式可能更为恰当。本文借鉴了关于饮酒、吸烟和道路安全的国际证据,以展示税收、广告禁令、行为规范和教育如何构建一个公共卫生框架,并引导个人做出更健康、更安全的行为选择。