Tweet [1]
… is from page 60 of Christopher Snowdon’s excellent 2017 book, Killjoys: A Critique of Paternalism [2] (link added):
In their day-to-day political activities, ‘public health’ paternalists rarely attempt to justify their position on ethical grounds, preferring instead to talk about ‘evidence-based policy’ (see Whyte 2013 [3]). This keeps the conversation on the consequentialist turf of ‘does it work?’ rather than opening up the question ‘is it right?’, but their consequentialism is of a narrow sort. If a policy is believed to prolong life or curtail risky behaviour, then it ‘works’ and becomes ‘evidence-based’ per se. Other consequences are largely ignored, including the implications for people’s welfare, unless they directly affect health.