Abstract
Suppose for the sake of argument that wide access to electronic cigarettes would help a great many smokers quit and others avoid smoking, with a dramatic cumulative effect on population health. But suppose also that nowadays, teenagers rarely benefit from that effect, because most do not smoke and are not expected to smoke as adults. Many teenagers do vape. When the net effect of vaping on general public health is expected to remain very positive, should we nevertheless fight vaping, so as to protect teenagers from the direct risks of vaping? For example, what to do if and when certain targeted regulations that would protect teenagers would also, by making it harder to vape, substantially increase smoking in the general population? This situation may be common, and, by pitting the health interests of the general population against those of teenagers, poses an ethical dilemma. This article argues philosophically that if such tradeoffs between the health interests of adolescents and those of the general population exist, morally it is both permissible and preferable to promote the health of the general population.
Implications
In the debate about electronic-cigarette based tobacco harm reduction, some disagreements are factual, for example, disagreements about how harmful vaping is to human lungs, and how much the option of vaping helps smokers quit. However, there is also an ethical debate: if tradeoffs between the health interests of adolescents at risk of vaping and those of the general population (driven by those of smokers) exist, who should be prioritized? This article argues that morally it is sometimes, at least, both permissible and preferable to promote the health of the general population over those of adolescents at risk of vaping.
Endoscopic Follow-Up of Positive Fecal Occult Blood Testing in the Ontario FOBT Project
