In defence of mandatory bicycle helmet legislation: response to Hooper and Spicer
We invoke a triple rationale to rebut Hooper and Spicer's argument against mandatory helmet laws. First, we use the laws of physics and empirical studies to show how bicycle helmets afford substantial protection to the user. We show that Hooper and Spicer erroneously downplay helmet utility and...
| Authors: | ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
BMJ Publ.
2015
|
| In: |
Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2015, Volume: 41, Issue: 8, Pages: 713-717 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000caa a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 181615170X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230426115828.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 220908s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1136/medethics-2013-101476 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)181615170X | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP181615170X | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 084 | |a 1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Biegler, Paul |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a In defence of mandatory bicycle helmet legislation: response to Hooper and Spicer |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2015 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a We invoke a triple rationale to rebut Hooper and Spicer's argument against mandatory helmet laws. First, we use the laws of physics and empirical studies to show how bicycle helmets afford substantial protection to the user. We show that Hooper and Spicer erroneously downplay helmet utility and that, as a result, their attack on the utilitarian argument for mandatory helmet laws is weakened. Next, we refute their claim that helmet legislation comprises unjustified paternalism. We show the healthcare costs of bareheaded riding to pose significant third party harms. It follows, we argue, that a utilitarian case for helmet laws can be sustained by appeal to Mill's Harm Principle. Finally, we reject Hooper and Spicer's claim that helmet laws unjustly penalise cyclists for their own health-affecting behaviour. Rather, we show their argument to suffer by disanalogy with medical cases where injustice may be more evident, for example, denial of bypass surgery to smokers. We conclude that mandatory helmet laws offer substantial utility and are entirely defensible within the framework of a liberal democracy. | ||
| 700 | 1 | |a Johnson, Marilyn |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of medical ethics |d London : BMJ Publ., 1975 |g 41(2015), 8, Seite 713-717 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)323607802 |w (DE-600)2026397-1 |w (DE-576)260773972 |x 1473-4257 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:41 |g year:2015 |g number:8 |g pages:713-717 |
| 856 | |3 Volltext |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/44014191 |x JSTOR | ||
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2013-101476 |x Resolving-System |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://jme.bmj.com/content/41/8/713.abstract |x Verlag |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 935 | |a mteo | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| ITA | |a 1 |t 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 4185605633 | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 181615170X | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20220908053644 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 220908||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 035 |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-08-03#71E4EA6395C88609FD55313867A0FEBBCEA76A34 | ||
| LOK | |0 040 |a DE-Tue135 |c DE-627 |d DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
| LOK | |0 852 |a DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
| LOK | |0 866 |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/44014191 | ||
| LOK | |0 935 |a ixzs |a ixrk |a zota | ||
| OAS | |a 1 |b inherited from superior work | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw | ||