Libertarian paternalists believe that we should ‘nudge’ people
to do certain things, but we shouldn’t take away options. In contrast, Sarah
Conly argues for taking away options by defending coercive paternalism.
What are her main arguments? How would a libertarian paternalist respond?
What are some ways these points apply to health care?
Sarah argues that in some situations it is okay for the government to make decisions on behalf of individuals for their well-being.
She believes that individuals can often make decisions that are irrational due to biases, or lack of information
Where health-related decisions are concerned, ethically, restricting autonomy can be justifiable
as the consequences are large
Additionally, coercive paternalism is okay when it leads to clear, objective benefits. For the individual, such as mandatory vaccinations
Libertarian paternalist is based more on nudges and suggestions rather than coercion
Individuals have freedom of choice with certain mandates and interventions to guide individuals into making decisions that would be better for them
Nudges are used to influence decisions while maintain autonomy, such as providing information
or using social interactions to guide better health decisions
In the context of health care, these policies are visible, covid vaccine is an example.
