Cargando…
Ethics and ENDS
As debate persists over regulating electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), those favouring liberal ENDS policies have advanced rights-based arguments privileging harm reduction to people who smoke over harm prevention to children and never-smokers. Recent ethical arguments advocate regulating E...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10423514/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35338090 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-057078 |
_version_ | 1785089469352771584 |
---|---|
author | Fenton, Elizabeth Robertson, Lindsay Hoek, Janet |
author_facet | Fenton, Elizabeth Robertson, Lindsay Hoek, Janet |
author_sort | Fenton, Elizabeth |
collection | PubMed |
description | As debate persists over regulating electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), those favouring liberal ENDS policies have advanced rights-based arguments privileging harm reduction to people who smoke over harm prevention to children and never-smokers. Recent ethical arguments advocate regulating ENDS to prioritise their harm reduction potential for people who currently smoke over any future harm to young never-smokers. In this article, we critically assess these arguments, in particular, the assumption that ethical arguments for prioritising the interests of young people do not apply to ENDS. We argue that, when the appropriate comparators are used, it is not clear the weight of ethical argument tips in favour of those who currently smoke and against young never-smokers. We also assert that arguments from a resource prioritisation context are not appropriate for analysing ENDS regulation, because ENDS are not a scarce resource. Further, we reject utilitarian arguments regarding maximising net population health benefits, as these do not adequately consider vulnerable groups’ rights, or address the population distribution of benefits and harms. Lastly, we argue that one-directional considerations of harm reduction do not recognise that ENDS potentially increase harm to those who do not smoke and who would not otherwise have initiated nicotine use. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10423514 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-104235142023-08-14 Ethics and ENDS Fenton, Elizabeth Robertson, Lindsay Hoek, Janet Tob Control Special Communication As debate persists over regulating electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), those favouring liberal ENDS policies have advanced rights-based arguments privileging harm reduction to people who smoke over harm prevention to children and never-smokers. Recent ethical arguments advocate regulating ENDS to prioritise their harm reduction potential for people who currently smoke over any future harm to young never-smokers. In this article, we critically assess these arguments, in particular, the assumption that ethical arguments for prioritising the interests of young people do not apply to ENDS. We argue that, when the appropriate comparators are used, it is not clear the weight of ethical argument tips in favour of those who currently smoke and against young never-smokers. We also assert that arguments from a resource prioritisation context are not appropriate for analysing ENDS regulation, because ENDS are not a scarce resource. Further, we reject utilitarian arguments regarding maximising net population health benefits, as these do not adequately consider vulnerable groups’ rights, or address the population distribution of benefits and harms. Lastly, we argue that one-directional considerations of harm reduction do not recognise that ENDS potentially increase harm to those who do not smoke and who would not otherwise have initiated nicotine use. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-08 2022-03-25 /pmc/articles/PMC10423514/ /pubmed/35338090 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-057078 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Special Communication Fenton, Elizabeth Robertson, Lindsay Hoek, Janet Ethics and ENDS |
title | Ethics and ENDS |
title_full | Ethics and ENDS |
title_fullStr | Ethics and ENDS |
title_full_unstemmed | Ethics and ENDS |
title_short | Ethics and ENDS |
title_sort | ethics and ends |
topic | Special Communication |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10423514/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35338090 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-057078 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fentonelizabeth ethicsandends AT robertsonlindsay ethicsandends AT hoekjanet ethicsandends |