When is Prevention Permissible? Ethical and Legal Smoking Restrictions

This essay examines the complex ethical and legal considerations surrounding the prevention of tobacco smoking. It delves into the arguments for and against restricting smoking, exploring the application of ethical theories like utilitarianism and Mill's harm principle. The essay analyzes the role of government, individual rights, and public health initiatives, including those from the WHO and various NGOs. It discusses the impact of policies, such as taxation and smoking bans, and the importance of awareness campaigns. Furthermore, the essay highlights ethical issues within healthcare, such as patient confidentiality and safe medication practices for smokers. The analysis considers the challenges of balancing individual freedoms with the need to protect public health, offering insights into the effectiveness of different approaches to tobacco control and the potential for reducing smoking prevalence through a combination of legal, ethical, and public awareness strategies.

ETHICAL AND LEGAL
ISSUES IN HEALTHCARE

Topic - When if ever is it permissible to prevent people from smoking tobacco?
Smoking is being considered as one of the vital factor to study, because number of
smokers is decreasing but than also in many ways, it is rapidly putting negative impact upon
youth, increasing. If it is talked about permitting smoking tobacco, than this can never be done
and the main reason behind this is that, it affects human body the most from any other drug. On
the other hand, based on the human rights, a person can only ask an individual to stop smoking
but, he/she cannot force the individual (Mantey and et. al, 2016). Thus, Apart from this, there are
some other reasons as well of not permitting smoking cigarettes (tobacco) as it can harm others
as well which could be considered as passive smoking. Basically permitting smoking in public or
any other area would not do anything but harm people around the person who smokes and it may
also affect environment as well (hole in ozone layer). Individual is going to use different ethical
related theories like utilitarianism and mills harm principle, which would help in developing
deeper knowledge linked with the topic i.e. when if ever is it permissible to prevent people from
smoking tobacco? Away with this, report is also going to put focus on initiatives which has been
taken by government to ask people to stop smoking considering different human rights law,
rights of people.
Individual must have control over his mind and body so that individual can prevent
himself from going in wrong direction. Apart from this, person must ensure that they can prevent
themselves from habits of consuming tobacco as it can have worst impact on their bodies and
mind. When individual consumes it then they are not in their senses and this can lead to any
number of incidents, even individual can loose their lives. Eventually it has negative impact on
their surroundings, smog coming from tobacco can harm person sitting beside them and will
pollute environment. Individual must have strong decision power to consider that what is right
and what is wrong for him. Individual must be selective in terms of his company or with his
friend circle to prevent himself from illegal things. After consuming tobacco individual can
create nuisance and will spoil his image. When family members starts pointing at individual then
they may not be able to handle stress and may take any wrong step, as a person after consuming
these things have lost their senses. Drug addiction is worst scenario and due to this not only
individual but people surrounding him has to go through different situations. It is not easy to stay
away from this addiction but it is not impossible if individual have intention, strong will power,
1

understanding and control over their mind then it can be achieved. From above it is justified that
it is possible to prevent individual from smoking tobacco (Hollnagel, 2018).
In recent times, ethical and legal aspects linked with smoking have been playing a crucial
role in healthcare industry. Confidentiality of patients (smokers) suffering from lung cancer or
any other chronic disease, prevention of communicable diseases and etc. are some of ethical
issues that took place in health and social care sector. Along with this, a few legal issues that
could be faced in healthcare sector like safe medication practice (for smokers), unnecessary
changes among policies like and etc. In order to reduce number of smokers in all over the world,
there are ample number of initiatives taken by government and many famous NGO's for
prevention. Modern world consists of various anti-tobacco legislations and policies that has been
developed by World Health Organisation (WHO) and kept it in a different section named as
Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) which is a part of WHO that
develops policies and uses different procedures to control the number of smokers that are present
in all over the world (Burton and et. al., 2015). This subsection of WHO has made various plans,
campaigns and policies to reduce number of smokers in all around the globe. However, this
contemporary issue is still rising where diseases related to lungs and pollution is rapidly
increasing and are leading to increasing ethical concerns in health care. According to Fairchild,
Bayer and Colgrove, (2014), one should require to focus on main stream i.e. health of a person
and do not smoke due to increasing severe illness among smokers and non-smokers. Along with
this, there are a number of ethical issues also took place that are linked with preventing people
from smoking where most anti-tobacco policies and legislation sanctioned by WHO Framework
Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) that basically aimed to stop smoking prevalence.
In past few years, it is being found that rise of tobacco ‘endgame’ proposals that aim to end
smoking altogether is helping people that smokes.
In 1964, there has been a dramatic shift in the public’s knowledge and attitudes about
smoking but still the number of smokers is huge. The key reason behind the smoking trend is
availability of cigarettes at low prices. Another step which was taken by government of many
countries to reducing smoking was increase in raised tax rates on cigarettes which actually
helped in reducing number of smokers. Apart from this, there were number of steps that WHO
FCTC initiated where range of policies were developed for controlling smoking at public places.
2

Due to this, the ratio of individuals smoking cuigrette reduced to small percentage i.e. 15–25%
(Schmidt, 2016).
As mentioned by Haug and et. al., (2015), smoking is addictive and therefore leading to
spread of many diseases among the society. Along with this, based on research investigation,
smoking continuously is killing around 6.5 million people every year in all over the world. Based
on an investigation, places like Singapore, India and Malaysia, smoking in younger generations
has increased which could be considered as one of biggest concerns that these nations need to
focus and control.. This suggests that measures beyond the FCTC, that target youth in particular,
are necessary to further reduce the public health burdens of smoking.
It is being critically evaluated that, prevention of people (smokers) could only be done if
they are willing too. It can be analysed that prevention can be based on developing awareness
regarding tobacco among large number of people. Most of the nations are restricted or ban use of
tobacco at specific place. Every person in society has right to make own decisions like if they
are willing smoke or not, until and unless it is not harming others. Here also, government can
only give them warning to reduce or quit smoking as it can lead them to face various diseases
like Cancer, Asthma and so on. This could be considered as one of the main reasons behind
ineffectiveness of various quit smoking campaigns. With the help of different initiatives taken by
both smokers and government, death rate could be reduced because quit smoking will directly
put positive impact upon health of smoking person and the people who unwillingly doing passive
smoking (Nagelhout and et. al, 2016).
On the other hand, if it is thought with a different perspective, government of different
nations and WHO have made different policies like no smoking at public area, and if an
individual found smoking, he/she will get charged. Main reason behind this is that, people who
smokes at public area, encourages others or teenagers as well and they might start smoking.
Other than this, people who do not got encouraged, basically doing passive smoking only even
when they are aware or not aware of it. This has impacted negatively on their health and raised
chances of getting different chronic diseases which cannot be cured. Away with this, there are
some places where smoking is ban, it directly raised cravings among people. Therefore, taking
strict action may lead government or other essential bodies to deal with a number of problems.
Most reluctantly, WHO FCTC and other governmental bodies are continuously trying their level
best to take right decisions so that number of smokers could be reduced to minimal. Ethical
3

responses and different factors based on mentality of public has been crucial among these
campaigns and policies. It can be analysed that, most of the countries are ban or restrict smoking
or tobacco substances. Because it is dangerous for human health and create bad impact on their
body (Myint and Yee, 2016).
According to Jha and Peto, (2014), Utilitarianism is an effective philosophical theory
based on making right determinations, that basically maximizes utility. In present time, it can be
understood on the basis of a phrase where “greatest well-being of the greatest number of people”.
If it is talked about prevention of people from smoking tobacco, government has made number of
policies to keep the individuals safe and secured at the same time. As per this theory, it has
believed that principles of utility can be defined as a measure of promoting health by reducing
ethical issues. It concerns on two main aspects that are: Act and Rule Utilitarianism. Here, act
utilitarianism focuses more on consequences of first instance i.e. only utility of certain act is
regarded. While, rule utilitarianism concerns mainly of consequences as per majority of
individual i.e. pleasure activity of a person create harm to others. Therefore, in context with
chain smokers, they smoke tobacco for own pleasure and happiness. But it affects their health
and people surround them (also known as passive smokers) in negative manner. So, it is essential
for regulatory bodies to take legal actions or make such laws which prevent people from
consequences of tobacco smoking. This would help in promoting health and preventing society
from harmful activities. Away with this, Utilitarianism is being considered as a approach, where
basically a situation is good or bad depends on whether the action that was conducted was right
or wrong. In present case, where smokers and both government of different countries have kept
their focus on "right" is its conformity with a moral norm. This could be understood with a good
example, where an individual is willing to smoke cigarettes as much as he/she can, this will
directly not support the environment and would lead earth to get polluted with smoke
(Environment, 2019). Along with this, when a smoker smokes cigarettes (tobacco), this basically
harms himself/herself and could lead him/her to a level where chances of getting heart attack, or
any other chronic disease gets increases. An argument that took place where world without
starvation was a bad state of affairs because of the way in which it was brought about. This
theory clearly states that it is very much necessary for people to know about the -prevention of
smoking tobacco as then only they will be able to prevent themselves from the diseases caused
by them (Berg, 2016). As given by Primack and et. al., (2014), morals that are basically linked
4

with the smokers has not been good among public and they sees them as a person who basically
do not fit in healthy public. Apart from this, basically utilitarianism emphasizes responsibility
along with the rule as well of government of countries where they have made ample number of
policies to reduce the smokers. It is ethically right as it helps in savings the life of people.
Therefore Utilitarianism is basically required to be implemented (Kozlowski and Sweanor,
2016).
As per the article views on Mill's moral and political philosophy, it has been analysed
that harm's principle is specially contributed to utilitarian and liberal traditions. It mainly
contributes on two main aspects that are Utilitarianism and On Liberty. These aspects sheds light
on liberal principles and Utilitarian of John Stuart Mill. In context with smokers, Mills' harm
principles distinguishes the harm and mere offense. It states that not every kind of unwelcome
consequences are counted as harm for others. While, offences are tended towards comparatively
minor and ephemeral. However, to classify harm it is essential that certain actions must be
injurious as well as set back towards interest of people. Whereas, in context with Mills theory, it
appears to be rejected the rules and regulations related to mere offense (Mills Moral and
Political Philosophy, 2016). The harm principles in this regard, are considered to be one
justifications for restricting liberty.
Other than this, harm principle of Mills is taken as one attempt as per reconciling
liberalism and related with community based living. It states that these principles could be
applied to prevent individuals who are affected by actions of others. Here, in present essay, these
people are known as passive smokers as they are at risks due to smoking ability of others. The
third principle of Mills reflected to have wide scope of certain issue i.e. such principles must
regulate more than relations between individuals and regulatory bodies. Since passive smokers
are at greater risk of healthcare issues. So, surrounded by chain smokers causes serious health
issues for them. It includes lung cancer, heart disease, cataracts, stroke and more. Therefore,
through above discussion, it has been also evaluated that harm prevention is necessary to protect
people from harmful diseases. But it is not sufficient also to justify such restriction on liberty.
However, damagers or anything which increases the probability of health issues related to
passive smokers, can alone justify the interference of public and society as well. Henceforth, if
any individual who acts hurtful activities like smoking which is injurious for themselves and
5

others too, should be punished as per legal laws. Government and societies must take legal
actions against them for prevention of public (chain and passive smokers).
Passive smokers is the inhalation of smoke which is also known as second hand smoke
(SHS) and environmental tobacco smoke by an individual other than intended active smokers.
This situation is arise when tobacco smoke permeates such environment, it cause due to
inhalation by people within the environment. In current time period, smoking is restricted in
different places where it harm people. Most of the anti tobacco policies and schemes are ratified
under WHO framework Convention on Tobacco Control which main aim is to reduce smoking
prevalence. Cigarettes and tobacco products are the leading causes for economic losses and
sometime it is lead towards death. It can be analysed that 80% of tobacco are associated with
deaths which occurs due to low and middle level of income group. Moreover, tobacco smoking
is legal, healthcare providers which may struggle with ethical issues whether someone who
abuses their body and health due to smoking. It is required for government is to develop and
make ethical policies which help country people in gaining prevention from dangerous addiction.
On the other hand, environment is also responsible for shaping the values and beliefs of a person
in regards to act of smoking.
On the other hand, human rights has been given to individuals equally where a person can
do anything considering all the laws. Still there are many cases that has been registered in past
where individuals got caught smoking in a area where it was prohibited. Away with this, if it is
talked about autonomous than it should include a range of three different factors and these are,
intention
, understanding
and control as well (Hrywna and et. al, 2016).
6

REFERENCES
Berg, C. J., 2016. Preferred flavors and reasons for e-cigarette use and discontinued use among
never, current, and former smokers. International journal of public health. 61(2).
pp.225-236.
Burton, S. and et. al., 2015. “Smoking is bad, it's not cool… yet I'm still doing it”: Cues for
tobacco consumption in a ‘dark’market. Journal of Business Research. 68(10). pp.2067-
2074.
Fairchild, A. L., Bayer, R. and Colgrove, J., 2014. The renormalization of smoking? E-cigarettes
and the tobacco “endgame”. New England Journal of Medicine. 370(4). pp.293-295.
Haug, S. and et. al., 2015. Smartphone use and smartphone addiction among young people in
Switzerland. Journal of behavioral addictions. 4(4). pp.299-307.
Hollnagel, E., 2018. Safety-I and Safety-II: the past and future of safety management. CRC
Press.
Hrywna, M. and et. al, 2016. Awareness and use of South Asian tobacco products among South
Asians in New Jersey. Journal of community health. 41(6). pp.1122-1129.
Jha, P. and Peto, R., 2014. Global effects of smoking, of quitting, and of taxing tobacco. New
England Journal of Medicine. 370(1). pp.60-68.
Kozlowski, L. T. and Sweanor, D., 2016. Withholding differential risk information on legal
consumer nicotine/tobacco products: the public health ethics of health information
quarantines. International Journal of Drug Policy. 32. pp.17-23.
Mantey, D. S. and et. al, 2016. E-cigarette marketing exposure is associated with e-cigarette use
among US youth. Journal of Adolescent Health. 58(6). pp.686-690.
Myint, T. and Yee, M. M., 2016. Tobacco smoking among school adolescents in Northern
Sabah. Asian Journal of Medical and Biological Research. 2(3). pp.389-395.
Nagelhout, G. E. and et. al, 2016. E-cigarette advertisements, and associations with the use of e-
cigarettes and disapproval or quitting of smoking: Findings from the International
Tobacco Control (ITC) Netherlands Survey. International Journal of Drug Policy. 29.
pp.73-79.
Primack, B. A. and et. al., 2014. Comparison of media literacy and usual education to prevent
Schmidt, A. T., 2016. Withdrawing versus withholding freedoms: Nudging and the case of
tobacco control. The American Journal of Bioethics. 16(7). pp.3-14.
tobacco use: a cluster‐randomized trial. Journal of School Health. 84(2). pp.106-115.
Online
Environment. 2019. [Online]. Available through: <https://tobaccoatlas.org/topic/environment/>.
Mills Moral and Political Philosophy. 2016. [Online]. Available through:
<https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/>.