Developing Health Advocacy Campaign
Added on 2021-05-30
15 Pages3579 Words19 Views
Disease and DisordersPhilosophy
|
|
|
0Running head: DEVELOPING HEALTH ADVOCACY CAMPAIGNDeveloping Health Advocacy CampaignName of the StudentName of UniversityAuthor’s note
1DEVELOPING HEALTH ADVOCACY CAMPAIGNIntroductionWith the increase in motor vehicle usage today, there has been a consequent increase in the number of accidents that recorded (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2016). The victims or the guilt of these motor accidents are the teenagers. According to Klauer (2014), in the year 2015, 2,333 teenagers who are aged between the 16 to 19 years of age have lost their lives as result of motor vehicle accidents. Over 235,845 teens wereadmitted to the emergency department as a result of these road accidents. Keeping this high rate of road accidents into consideration, advocacy campaigns targeting to drink and drive and reckless driving among the youths have been generated. Upon framing of the advocacy campaign over the target group of population certain ethical and legal issues must be taken into consideration. The following assignment aims to analyze the ethical and legal dilemmas that could arise from the advocacy campaign followed by the best suited ethics and lobbying laws that coincide with this advocacy campaign and finally the ethical challenged that might surfaced while handling thetarget group of population (young adults or teenage group of populations) in the advocacy campaigns).
2DEVELOPING HEALTH ADVOCACY CAMPAIGNEthical dilemmas and how to resolve CriminalizationIn the intersection of moral philosophy and law the main question which arises is what acts should be regarded as criminal offence and what acts will demand punishment. For obvious reasons, there are numerous drunk and drive accidents among the youths that are criminalized and there is a constant discussion in various spheres of society regarding which kind of acts should be penalized and how. There are two important philosophical perspectives that can be on punishment. The perspective is retributivists approach that argue that punishment are given because the offenders deserve to be punished. On the other hand, consequentialists are of the opinion that punishment is only justified if it has more advantageous consequences in comparison to refraining punishing will. Drunk driving is regarded to be immoral and the road accidents occurring due to intoxicated drives which results in fatality often generate emotionally laden argument centering how to punish these drunk drivers. Here two philosophical views over punishment becomes clear when few people consider long prison sentences and tally drunk driving to murder, where as other express their confusion as to whether this is effective that is highlighting on the consequences(Fahlquist,2009). In order to prevent drunk and drive, Hansen (2015) has proposed a method of alcohol interlock. It is a technical tool that makes it impossible for the drive to drive after consuming certain percentage of alcohol. Here the drivers have to prove their sobriety via exhalation sample before starting the car’s engine. The interlock here is
3DEVELOPING HEALTH ADVOCACY CAMPAIGNassociated to ignition of the care and if the level of alcohol is measured above maximum limit set, the vehicle will not start. However, to compel all the vehicles to install such devices is likely to experience substantial resistance. Thus before criminalizing act alternative methods should be discussed for example, the offenders should be penalised in proportion to his desert which is a relation of how serious the offense is(Pettersson&Autoliv Development,2013). PaternalismAccusations of paternalism are very common in the domain of traffic safety issues of drunk driving like the compulsory use of seatbelts, motorcycle helmets or bicycle helmets. It is opined that the application of seatbelts diminish the individuals ethical rights of freedom are responsibility. This is because they are not enabled to take decision for themselves like whether to accept certain amount of risk. There are two prime justifications for the laws mandating people to use such potentially freedom or liberty-restricting devices. First and foremost is there isa financial incentive to decrease the overall expenditure of saving lives and thereby rehabilitatingpeople. Second one is further controversial and it may be stated that individuals should be forcedto, for example, use of proper seat belt while driving for their own safety(Flanigan,2017). According to Flanigan(2017), the one and only justified interference with the liberty of an individual is that which is aimed towards preventing other individuals from potential harm. Thus the ethical dilemma of whether or not to wear seat belts can be easily resolved under the ethical principle of utilitarianism which signifies that the best action is the one that maximizes the utility
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.