Friedman Paternalism

What is Paternalism? Paternalism can be defined as interfering with a person 's freedom for his or her own good. The word calls to mind the image of a father who makes decisions for his children rather than letting them make their own decisions, on the grounds that "father knows best." The principle of paternalism underlies a wide range of laws, practices, and actions„ a physician who decides what is best for a patient, a sign prohibiting swimming without a lifeguard on duty, laws against voluntary euthanasia, laws restricting the use of heroin, cocaine, marijuana and other drugs, compulsory retirement savings plans, and mandatory seat belt laws all designed to protect our interests, whether we like it or not. Paternalism involves a conflict

Many of the most critical public health problems of our times, especially obesity, can be addressed only by implementing paternalistic, including hard paternalistic, policies. Friedman sought to provide policymakers with a guide for the effective use of paternalistic public health interventions. Friedman presented a spectrum of what he describes as five increasingly levels of intervention, ranging from those that are a paternalistic, to devising strategies, insulating strategies, and the most “hard” form of paternalism, bans or mandates. In great detail, Friedman explores different types of strategies that can be used to combat obesity within each of the levels on his spectrum. He also provides keen insights from the reaction to, and success or failure of, different regulatory tools in the areas of fluoridation, marijuana, and the regulation of genetically modified foods or genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Friedman exposed the thick particularity of public health policy making. For example, he suggested that lighter interventions are generally less likely to raise the public’s indignation; even calls for voluntarism have provoked a backlash in some circumstances (“Beyond Paternalism: Rethinking the Limits of Public Health Law”,

They regulate behavior in order to benefit the individual whose behavior is in question. Thus a law that limits the liberty of one person X in order to benefit another Y is not rightly speaking paternalistic, even if it seeks to benefit Y by influencing Y’s self-regarding behavior. For example, a law compelling a tobacco company (X) to include a warning label on its advertisements is not actually paternalistic because the party that is intended to benefit (Y, the would-be smoker) is not the person whose liberty is limited. Put differently, the activity that is regulated, tobacco marketing, is not a self-regarding behavior; like all advertising, it is very much directed to others. A law that limits the liberty of a subject in order to benefit someone else is not ordinarily thought of as paternalistic, even if the law has the incidental effect of benefiting the subject whose liberty is limited. For example, we would not say that laws limiting speeding are paternalistic, even though they may also benefit the health of the drivers whose liberty is restricted (“Beyond Paternalism: Rethinking the Limits of Public Health Law”,