Abstract
Historically the most important rationale for coercive public health measures has been the prevention of disease and harm to others. As noncommunicable diseases, induced by personal habits, account for higher rates of death and disability, governmental restrictions on individuals are being based on a new argument--social costs. Indirect monetary effects are substituted for direct health effects. But since we lack precise measurements of net costs, the risks of coercion should be approached cautiously.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. Health and Society
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
