Hospitality Industry Smoking Bans and Child Endangerment

Abstract

rationally argue infants and small children should be allowed to roam freely about cars when the latter are in use. Moreover, adult seatbelts are inade quate substitutes for car seats: seatbelts cannot prevent injuries to children they way they can for adults. Since the state has an obligation to protect those who cannot protect themselves, it has a moral duty to pass and enforce laws requiring children's guardians to use car seats. Of a somewhat more controversial nature is a legal requirement for adult seatbelt use. Even though seatbelts save lives in general, there are those who argue against states' intervention in their citizens' right to self determination. If a person autonomously chooses not to wear a seatbelt, and no one is unduly harmed by the act, then the person may omit wearing a seat belt. Acting in such a way is imprudent, but the right to self-determination is not limited to the prudent (Gorovitz, 186). In this particular argument, autonomy trumps governments' obligation to protect the populace's health. Others argue for the contrary position.