TY - JOUR
T1 - In defence of mandatory bicycle helmet legislation: response to Hooper and Spicer
AU - Biegler, Paul
AU - Johnson, Marilyn
PY - 2015
Y1 - 2015
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://jme.bmj.com/content/41/8/713.full.pdf+html
U2 - 10.1136/medethics-2013-101476
DO - 10.1136/medethics-2013-101476
M3 - Article
SN - 0306-6800
VL - 41
SP - 713
EP - 717
JO - Journal of Medical Ethics
JF - Journal of Medical Ethics
IS - 8
ER -