历史背景下的家长制:英国的头盔和安全带立法。

IF 1.4 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Public Health Ethics Pub Date : 2023-03-13 eCollection Date: 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1093/phe/phad001
Janet Weston
{"title":"历史背景下的家长制:英国的头盔和安全带立法。","authors":"Janet Weston","doi":"10.1093/phe/phad001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Paternalism is a frequent source of anxiety and scholarly enquiry within public health. This article examines debate in the UK from the 1950s to the early 1980s about two quintessentially paternalistic laws: those making it compulsory to use a motorcycle helmet, and a car seatbelt. This kind of historical analysis, looking at change over time and the circumstances that prevent or enable such change, draws attention to two significant features: the contingent nature of that which is perceived as paternalistic and therefore objectionable, and the wide range of arguments that can be marshalled for and against. It suggests that paternalism became a particularly disruptive accusation in the UK of the 1970s in relation to seatbelts, thanks to the population that would be affected and the wider socio-political context. It also suggests that arguments about the social cost of death and injury on the roads, along with overt acceptance that some element of paternalism could be acceptable, proved influential-as was the sense of inevitability that 10 years of regular debate helped to create.</p>","PeriodicalId":49136,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Ethics","volume":"16 1","pages":"64-76"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10161527/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Paternalism in Historical Context: Helmet and Seatbelt Legislation in the UK.\",\"authors\":\"Janet Weston\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/phe/phad001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Paternalism is a frequent source of anxiety and scholarly enquiry within public health. This article examines debate in the UK from the 1950s to the early 1980s about two quintessentially paternalistic laws: those making it compulsory to use a motorcycle helmet, and a car seatbelt. This kind of historical analysis, looking at change over time and the circumstances that prevent or enable such change, draws attention to two significant features: the contingent nature of that which is perceived as paternalistic and therefore objectionable, and the wide range of arguments that can be marshalled for and against. It suggests that paternalism became a particularly disruptive accusation in the UK of the 1970s in relation to seatbelts, thanks to the population that would be affected and the wider socio-political context. It also suggests that arguments about the social cost of death and injury on the roads, along with overt acceptance that some element of paternalism could be acceptable, proved influential-as was the sense of inevitability that 10 years of regular debate helped to create.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Health Ethics\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"64-76\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10161527/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Health Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phad001\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/4/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phad001","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

家长制经常引起公共卫生领域的焦虑和学术探讨。本文研究了英国从 20 世纪 50 年代到 80 年代初关于两项典型的家长制法律的争论:强制使用摩托车头盔和汽车安全带的法律。这种历史分析着眼于随着时间的推移而发生的变化,以及阻止或促成这种变化的环境,使人们注意到两个重要特征:被视为家长式作风因而令人反感的法律的偶然性,以及支持和反对家长式作风的论据的广泛性。报告指出,在 20 世纪 70 年代的英国,家长式作风成为与安全带有关的特别具有破坏性的指控,这要归功于受影响的人口和更广泛的社会政治背景。研究还表明,关于道路上人员伤亡的社会成本的争论,以及公开承认某些家长式作风是可以接受的,都被证明是有影响力的,而10年的定期辩论也有助于形成一种不可避免的感觉。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Paternalism in Historical Context: Helmet and Seatbelt Legislation in the UK.

Paternalism is a frequent source of anxiety and scholarly enquiry within public health. This article examines debate in the UK from the 1950s to the early 1980s about two quintessentially paternalistic laws: those making it compulsory to use a motorcycle helmet, and a car seatbelt. This kind of historical analysis, looking at change over time and the circumstances that prevent or enable such change, draws attention to two significant features: the contingent nature of that which is perceived as paternalistic and therefore objectionable, and the wide range of arguments that can be marshalled for and against. It suggests that paternalism became a particularly disruptive accusation in the UK of the 1970s in relation to seatbelts, thanks to the population that would be affected and the wider socio-political context. It also suggests that arguments about the social cost of death and injury on the roads, along with overt acceptance that some element of paternalism could be acceptable, proved influential-as was the sense of inevitability that 10 years of regular debate helped to create.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Public Health Ethics
Public Health Ethics PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-MEDICAL ETHICS
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
9.50%
发文量
28
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Public Health Ethics invites submission of papers on any topic that is relevant for ethical reflection about public health practice and theory. Our aim is to publish readable papers of high scientific quality which will stimulate debate and discussion about ethical issues relating to all aspects of public health. Our main criteria for grading manuscripts include originality and potential impact, quality of philosophical analysis, and relevance to debates in public health ethics and practice. Manuscripts are accepted for publication on the understanding that they have been submitted solely to Public Health Ethics and that they have not been previously published either in whole or in part. Authors may not submit papers that are under consideration for publication elsewhere, and, if an author decides to offer a submitted paper to another journal, the paper must be withdrawn from Public Health Ethics before the new submission is made. The editorial office will make every effort to deal with submissions to the journal as quickly as possible. All papers will be acknowledged on receipt by email and will receive preliminary editorial review within 2 weeks. Papers of high interest will be sent out for external review. Authors will normally be notified of acceptance, rejection, or need for revision within 8 weeks of submission. Contributors will be provided with electronic access to their proof via email; corrections should be returned within 48 hours.
期刊最新文献
From Self-Management to Shared-Management: A Relational Approach for Equitable Chronic Care The Application of Australian Rights Protections to the Use of Hepatitis C Notification Data to Engage People ‘Lost to Follow Up’ Time to Treat the Climate and Nature Crisis as One Indivisible Global Health Emergency. Psychedelics in PERIL: The Commercial Determinants of Health, Financial Entanglements and Population Health Ethics The Liberalism of Fear and Public Health Ethics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1