Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDawson, Angus
dc.date.accessioned2016-05-30
dc.date.available2016-05-30
dc.date.issued2016-05-23
dc.identifier.citationDawson A., Snakes and ladders: state interventions and the place of liberty in public health policy, J Med Ethics, doi:10.1136/medethics-2016-103502. Published online 23 May 2016. Available online at http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2016/05/23/medethics-2016-103502.abstracten_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2123/14983
dc.descriptionpostprinten_AU
dc.description.abstractIn this paper I outline and explore some problems in the way that the Nuffield Council of Bioethics’ report Public Health: Ethical Issues presents its ‘Intervention Ladder’. They see the metaphor of a ladder both as capturing key normative priorities and as making a real and important contribution to ethical policymaking in public health. In this paper I argue that the intervention ladder is not a useful model for thinking about policy decisions, that it is likely to produce poor decisions, and that it is incompatible with the report’s stated approach to relevant public health policy values.en_AU
dc.language.isoenen_AU
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupen_AU
dc.subjectIntervention Ladderen_AU
dc.subjectPublic Healthen_AU
dc.subjectethical policy-makingen_AU
dc.subjectNuffield Council of Bioethicsen_AU
dc.subjectpublic health policyen_AU
dc.subjectvaluesen_AU
dc.titleSnakes and ladders: state interventions and the place of liberty in public health policyen_AU
dc.typeArticleen_AU


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.