Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorThompson, Christopher Jeremy
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-21T09:10:45Z
dc.date.available2019-01-21T09:10:45Z
dc.date.issued2016-02-08
dc.description.abstractGeoffrey Rose's ‘prevention paradox’ occurs when a population‐based preventative health measure that brings large benefits to the community – such as compulsory seatbelts, a ‘fat tax’, or mass immunisation – offers little to each participating individual. Although the prevention paradox is not obviously a paradox in the sense in which philosophers understand the term, it does raise important normative questions. In particular, should we implement population‐based preventative health measures when the typical individual is not expected to gain from them? After canvassing other attempts to address the paradox, I argue that what is significant about the prevention paradox is that it involves intra‐personal trade‐offs; the costs and benefits of the choice to implement or not implement a preventative health measure fall on the same individuals. The intra‐personal nature of these trade‐offs has two implications. First, the solutions to the paradox proposed by other authors are deficient. Second, the policy choice to not implement some preventative health measures can be normatively justified.en_US
dc.descriptionThis is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article: Thompson, C.J. (2018). Rose’s Prevention Paradox. <i>Journal of Applied Philosophy, 35</i>(2), 242-256, which has been published in final form at <a href=https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12177> https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12177</a>. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.en_US
dc.identifier.citationThompson, C.J. (2018). Rose’s Prevention Paradox. <i>Journal of Applied Philosophy, 35</i>(2), 242-256. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12177en_US
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 1538891
dc.identifier.issn0264-3758
dc.identifier.issn1468-5930
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/14493
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSociety for Applied Philosophyen_US
dc.relation.journalJournal of Applied Philosophy
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccessen_US
dc.subjectVDP::Humanities: 000::Philosophical disciplines: 160en_US
dc.subjectVDP::Humaniora: 000::Filosofiske fag: 160en_US
dc.titleRose’s Prevention Paradoxen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US


File(s) in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record