TOPIC GUIDE: Unhealthy Lifestyles
"Unhealthy lifestyles are not the business of government"
PUBLISHED: 22 Aug 2014
AUTHOR: Rob Lyons and Anwar Oduro-Kwarteng
Share this Topic Guide:
Over the past few decades, it could be argued that governments have regulated more and more to help us make healthy choices in our lives. In the UK, according to some estimates; 67% of men, and 57% of women are either overweight or obese, making us one of the fattest nations in Europe [Ref: Guardian]. Supporters of intervention argue that this is one of the reasons why it is necessary for the government to act to tackle unhealthy lifestyles, with some suggesting that in the long run, the next generation may actually have shorter life expectancies than their parents, because of lifestyle related illnesses [Ref: Independent]. They assert that those who pursue unhealthy lifestyles also affect others around them, whether directly - through ‘second-hand’ smoke, or alcohol-related crime - or indirectly through increases in healthcare costs; with Type 2 diabetes said to cost the taxpayer £9bn per year to treat in the UK [Ref: Huffington Post]. On the other hand, critics put forward the notion of individual choice when it comes to lifestyle preferences. They argue that we should be free to make our own decisions about lifestyle and health, even if others see them as ‘bad’ choices [Ref: Guardian]. We cease to be free, they suggest, if the government can manipulate how we live our lives, either through outright bans, “sin taxes” or other restrictions, with one commentator warning that: “You’re more akin to an ape than a man” [Ref: Telegraph] when the government steps in to regulate your lifestyle choices. Is it right that government plays a role in our lifestyle choices, and does it have a responsibility to do so? Or should we be left to our own devices to pursue whatever lifestyle we choose?
DEBATE IN CONTEXT
This section provides a summary of the key issues in the debate, set in the context of recent discussions and the competing positions that have been adopted.
The rise of the new public health
Attempts to regulate our bad habits are not new. For instance, in America, the consumption of alcohol was completely banned during the Prohibition era of the 1920s and 1930s [Ref: About.Com]. The more modern trend of regulation however, started with tobacco. In 1954, two British researchers, Austin Bradford Hill and Richard Doll, reported a strong link between smoking and lung cancer [Ref: British Medical Journal]. A major conference in 1978 produced the Alma Ata Declaration, which argued that health was a right, and that: “Governments have a responsibility for the health of their people which can be fulfilled only by the provision of adequate health and social measures” [Ref: Pan American Health Organization]. As a result, smoking became a public health issue, and over the years, more and more legislation has been passed in order to reduce levels of smoking, culminating in the ban of smoking in public places in the UK in 2007 [Ref: BBC News]. Views on the rise of public health differ greatly. With advocates of increased intervention suggesting that because education and persuasion alone are not enough, government action is also needed to alter unhealthy lifestyle habits, by reducing our exposure to certain products such as trans fats [Ref: The Times]. For them: “Public health is the role of government, and diet is right up there with any other public responsibility you can name” [Ref: New York Times]. Critics of this approach bemoan the fact that government intervention suggests an inability on the part of the individual to exercise their own will, and instead, need the government to do it for them [Ref: Telegraph].
The case for regulation
Advocates say the ban on smoking in public places in the UK is an example of the good that government intervention can do. They cite evidence that suggests that by 2012, there were 1200 less hospital admissions per year in the UK due to heart attack - a key health risk for smokers [Ref: Guardian]. Supporters also note that Smoking rates have declined markedly as a result of legislation: in 1974, 51 per cent of men and 41 per cent of women smoked; by 2012, just 20 per cent of adults in the UK smoked [Ref: ASH]. In a further attempt to cut smoking related deaths, and deter the young from smoking, there are suggestions that the UK should ban anyone born after the year 2000 from ever being permitted to buy cigarettes [Ref: Daily Mail]. But this kind of prohibition seldom works, others assert, noting that the smoking ban in Ireland appears to have had little effect on smoking rates among the population there [Ref: Irish Independent]. Furthermore, in response to calls for smoking in cars with children on board to be banned, critics warn that: “This prohibition (outlawing smoking in cars) would control the behaviour of free non criminal adults in their own private space, and is the first step in a process that is likely to make our homes the legitimate jurisdiction of politicians” [Ref: Guardian]. However, commentator Muriel Gray dismisses these concerns, stating that: “Legislation is sometimes simply a benchmark of decency. We declare, through law, that something is not acceptable and potentially actionable… That is the mark of civilised society and successful communal living.” [Ref: Guardian].
Government intervention is also necessary to tackle unhealthy diets some say, with rates of certain cancers, and even diseases of centuries past such as gout on the rise due to poor diet, and over consumption of sugars, fats and alcohol [Ref: Express]. For them, the solution is legislation, with a sugar tax being mooted in the UK as a way of regulating what we eat, and protecting children from excess sugar consumption [Ref: Independent]. The UK is not alone; across Europe, countries such as France have introduced a levy on fat [Ref: Daily Mail] in an attempt to address growing obesity problems. But critics point to the failure of a so called ‘fat tax’ in Denmark, which was the first country to implement such as measure, but was forced to rescind the law a year later due to its effect on the economy, and because it failed to alter consumer behaviour [Ref: Economist]. On principle, these commentators claim that what individuals choose to eat should be their decision alone. Although this view is questioned on a practical level by those who say that government must step in, because healthcare is not free, and long term, the NHS cannot cope with treating those with lifestyle related illnesses [Ref: Guardian].
Personal choice and individual responsibility?
Author G.K Chesterton wrote: “The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does, he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if not, he is not a free man any more than a dog” [Ref: Chesterton.org]. From this position, the government has no place in legislating to get us to adjust our diet and lifestyle; how we choose to live our lives is our decision alone, because: “ When the government gets involved in taxing this or prohibiting that, it removes another small plank from the concept of personal responsibility” [Ref: The Times]. Others suggest that this individualistic view of society is unhelpful, with one observer noting that: “We want the state to take our side and, when necessary to stop us smoking, drinking, and eating ourselves into an early grave” [Ref: Herald Scotland]. When seen in this light, government intervention in our lifestyles is benevolent and for our own good, rather than malevolent and controlling.
Opponents though suggest this view of government interference amounts to nothing more than a “nanny state”. Instead, they argue that: “Adults should enjoy the right to eat and drink what they wish, and the corresponding responsibility to enjoy or suffer the consequences” [Ref: Forbes]. In contrast, columnist Minette Marrin disagrees, and responds by saying that: “ You cannot have a welfare state without having a nanny state to some degree…we are all closely involved with one another’s health, including everyone’s eating and drinking” [Ref: The Times]. But even if we agree with concerns over the nanny state, can the same principle of personal responsibility apply to children? Supporters of government intervention think not. Amid evidence of an obesity problem among children, and calls for a sugar tax [Ref: Independent], as well as a ban on smoking in cars with children on board, some feel that government intervention is the right thing to do in order to protect the young [Ref: Guardian]. So, should the state have a decisive role in our lifestyle choices? Or is lifestyle the domain of the private individual, who should be free to make unhealthy decisions if they wish to do so, without state interference?
It is crucial for debaters to have read the articles in this section, which provide essential information and arguments for and against the debate motion. Students will be expected to have additional evidence and examples derived from independent research, but they can expect to be criticised if they lack a basic familiarity with the issues raised in the essential reading.
Economist 15 December 2012
Radley Balko et al Sampfnu
Matthew Sayed The Times 6 March 2014
Mark Wallace Guardian 10 January 2014
Brendan O'Neill Telegraph 4 July 2012
Karen Harned Forbes 5 May 2012
Phil Whittaker New Statesman 17 April 2014
Jock Morrison Herald Scotland 8 April 2014
Muriel Gray Guardian 30 May 2013
Camilla Cavendish The Times 3 January 2013
Sarah Boseley Guardian 24 June 2014
James Delingpole Spectator 21 June 2014
Financial Times 29 April 2014
Scheherazade Daneshkhu Financial Times 25 April 2014
British Medical Journal 24 June 2004
Definitions of key concepts that are crucial for understanding the topic. Students should be familiar with these terms and the different ways in which they are used and interpreted and should be prepared to explain their significance.
Useful websites and materials that provide a good starting point for research.
Sally Davies Guardian 22 July 2014
Phil Hammond The Times 29 May 2014
The Times 21 May 2014
Joanna Blythman Guardian 23 March 2014
Christopher Caldwell Financial Times 7 March 2014
Luciana Berger Guardian 5 February 2014
Charlotte Gore Guardian 30 January 2014
James Delingpole Telegraph 18 December 2013
Phillip Johnston Telegraph 15 July 2013
Minette Marrin The Times 3 March 2013
Peter Foster Telegraph 11 January 2013
Economist 17 November 2012
Paul Hsieh Forbes 18 June 2012
Adam Smith Institute 14 May 2012
Art Carden Forbes 2 February 2012
Mark Bittman New York Times 23 July 2011
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Links to organisations, campaign groups and official bodies who are referenced within the Topic Guide or which will be of use in providing additional research information.
IN THE NEWS
Relevant recent news stories from a variety of sources, which ensure students have an up to date awareness of the state of the debate.
Guardian 31 July 2014
Independent 22 June 2014
Telegraph 21 June 2014
Guardian 19 May 2014
Daily Mail 12 May 2014
Telegraph 4 May 2014
Guardian 25 April 2014
Daily Mail 26 March 2014
BBC News 5 March 2014
Express 16 January 2014
Telegraph 15 October 2013
Independent 12 August 2013
Huffington Post 27 November 2012
Washington Post 11 November 2012
Guardian 29 June 2012
Daily Mail 29 December 2011
Telegraph 7 December 2011
Independent 3 October 2011
BBC News 1 December 2006
This site contains links to websites operated by parties other than Debating Matters. Although we make every effort to ensure links are current, they will sometimes break after Topic Guide publication. If a link does not work, then the publication reference and date should enable you to find an alternate link. If you find a broken link do please send it to the webmaster for review.
TOPIC GUIDE MENU
Select the relevant option
Related topic guides