That’s the question taken up by a report out today from the UK’s Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The committee behind the report recommends a “stewardship” model for the government. From the report’s executive summary (pdf):

The concept of stewardship is intended to convey that liberal states have a duty to look after important needs of people individually and collectively. It emphasises the obligation of states to provide conditions that allow people to be healthy and, in particular, to take measures to reduce health inequalities. The stewardship-guided state recognises that a primary asset of a nation is its health: higher levels of health are associated with greater overall well-being and productivity.

And according to the chair of the report’s committee, if that means keeping us from doing some things we might want to do, so be it. Said Lord Krebs in a press release, “People often reject the idea of a nanny state, but the Government has a duty to look after the health of everyone and sometimes that means guiding or restricting our choices.”

Specifically, the committee recommends tighter laws for the sale of alcohol, urban planning aimed a fighting obesity and continued voluntary vaccination programs with no penalties for non-compliance.

-Greg Dahlmann

Earlier on blog.bioethics.net:
+ Fast food off the menu?