Public health expert Ken Harvey believes that they should
In theory, allowing people to make their own choices about purchasing products, unfettered by a “nanny state”, sounds fine. However, this assumes that consumers can make informed, rational choices about the cost, risks and benefits of a given product, and that their decisions have no impact on others.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Doughney J. Socioeconomic banditry: poker machines and income redistribution in Victoria. In: Eardley T, Bradbury B, eds. Competing visions: refereed proceedings of the National Social Policy Conference 2001. SPRC Report 1/02. Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, 2002: 136-154. http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/media/File/NSPC01_Doughney.pdf (accessed Aug 2011).
- 2. Committee for the Study of the Future of Public Health, Institute of Medicine (USA). The future of public health. Washington: National Academy Press, 1998.
- 3. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Public health. Chapter 3. Policy process and practice. London: Nuffield Council, 2007. http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/sites/default/files/files/Public%20health%20Chapter%203%20-%20Policy%20process%20and%20practice.pdf (accessed Aug 2011).
- 4. Australian Government Productivity Commission. Gambling. Inquiry report. Canberra: Productivity Commission, 2010. http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/gambling-2009/report (accessed Aug 2011).
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.
No relevant disclosures.