Introduction
In this paper, I will argue that Kass’ public health ethics framework that Quebec considering outlawing the sale of caffeinated ‘energy’ drinks to persons under 16 is ethically justified using the utilitarianism and harm reduction principle.
Caffeinated energy drinks (CEDs) are beverages that contain high levels of caffeine, stimulants, and often other substances such as taurine and sugars (NCCIH, 2018). High dose of sugar is used in these drinks in other to make it sweet and also sugar is considered a form of energy boost. Red Bull and Monster are one of the most popular energy drinks among children, adolescents and young adults (Breda, 2014). In advertisements, CEDs are said to increase the level of energy of an individual, focus and also keep them wide awake. This has led to the increase in the consumptions of these drinks. According to a study done in Ontario, about half of adolescents have had an energy at least once in the year. (NCCIH, 2018). Evidence have shown that energy drinks can lead to serious health impacts in children and teenagers. Also, studies have shown a rise in visits to emergency rooms due to energy drink overdose among adolescents (NCCIH, 2018). About a half of adolescents who consume energy drinks experienced unfavourable effects such as unsteadiness of the hands (Pound, 2017). A lot of health professionals have shown concerns over the adverse effects of CEDs most especially among children and adolescents. This is due to the high caffeine content which could lead to cardiovascular and neurological issues. Also, the high level of sugar could lead to obesity and even liver problems (Ibrahim, 2014). This is why some countries have banned energy drinks in the past or considered banning them.
According to studies, Health Canada implemented rules to be followed in a bid to regulate the consumption of caffeinated energy drinks such as limiting the amount of caffeine to “180mg per single serving” and “a concentration of 400mg/ L” (Canadian Paediatric Society, 2017). A ban was also placed on marketing of CEDs to children and adolescents. Mandatory labelling that goes in accordance with the Food and Drugs Act which includes the amount of caffeine from all sources, advisories on mixing beverage with alcohol, Nutrition Fact and ingredient lists among others (Canadian Paediatric Society, 2017).
Thesis Argument
Utilitarian theory is based on the belief that a moral decision is based on the outcome of the action, if that action produces the most benefit and maximizes utility for the greater number of people in a population, then it is morally sound (Holland, 2015). Based on this perspective, banning of CEDs would benefit majority of people by leading to a healthier population. Energy drinks being consumed not only negatively impacts the person consuming it, but it also puts a burden on the healthcare system due to the increase in the amount of cases related to CED consumptions in hospitals. Outlawing the sale of CEDs to persons under 16 would minimize the amount of people being hospitalized as a result of consumption of these drinks and therefore, increase the utility of health care systems for everyone. Burden of emergency visits to the hospitals would reduce because according to studies hospitalizations due to energy drink consumption increased by a double between 2007 and 2011 (NCCIH, 2018). Utilitarianism perspective would support the outlawing because this would help in the reduction of hospitalization in Quebec which in turn would increase utility and benefit majority of the people.
Mill’s harm principle believes power can be justly exercised over members of a community even against their will, when it is an act that will prevent harm to others (Holland, 2014). This principle would support the outlawing the consumption of Caffeinated Energy Drinks among persons younger than 16, this is due to the fact that other actions put into place to reduce consumption in the past have not been effective. There have been different measures put in place by the government in other to restrict the way these CEDs are produced and also consumed (NCCIH, 2018). The harm principle would support outlawing of Caffeinated Energy Drinks by Government of Quebec because energy drinks have a lot of side effects which are more dangerous to children and young adults (NCCIH, 2018). Although, these regulations have helped reduce the health impacts that are associated with consumptions of these beverages, outlawing them among persons under 16 years of age would help curtail the harms associated with them among these group of individuals entirely. Therefore, the use of Harm Principle can help to justify the intervention of Quebec Government in outlawing consumption of CEDs among persons younger than 16.
Critique of View
Liberalist theory would oppose to government intervention in outlawing the sale of caffeinated energy drinks to persons under the age of 16 (Veerapen, 2020). This is because liberalism views focus on achieving rights for each individual, especially their right to pursue their own belief of what is right or wrong. Liberalist perspective advocates for minimizing of government involvement in the affairs of its people (Holland, 2014). With regards to caffeinated energy drinks, consuming it or not should be a decision the individual has the right to make. With the implementation of different measures to restrict the way CEDs are produced and consumed in other to reduce their harmful effects, it is then important for the consumers of these beverages to decide on whether they want to consume them or not. Instead of outlawing the consumption of CEDs among persons under 16 and taking their rights to making their own decisions away. The Government can mandate Health Authorities to raise awareness and educate these individuals by adding negative impacts of CED consumption to their school curriculum and put out advertisements as well to the general public on advantages of limiting or not consuming these beverages (Veerapen, 2020). Outlawing these CEDs among persons under 16 would just be implementation of action by people of authority which in turn would be a restriction of decisions these individuals are entitled to make. In addition, regarding the restrictions placed by the government in the past, an example would be, when it comes to the restriction on advertisements, the liberalist theory would argue that businesses should have the right to advertise their products the way they want to in other to grow their businesses. The liberty to do that should not be taken from them because of the fact that people cannot properly control themselves and limit their consumption of certain beverages. Children cannot necessarily make rationale choices, hence the reason they have guardians who are able to make these decisions for them. Parents should be encouraged to step up their game and help direct their under aged children in making right decisions instead of the liberty of these companies to advertise their products how they want being taken from them.
Response to Opponent’s Critisism
In response to the critique, paternalism would give the parent or guardian the power to decide on whether to allow their under 16 child take caffeinated energy drink or not (Holland, 2014). However, it is understandable that this does interfere with the child’s ability to make their own autonomous decision on whether they want to take these beverages or not because their legal guardian has the final decision to make for them. For example, due to the negative health impacts of CEDs, it is in the parent’s best interest to ensure that the under 16-year-old child does not take these beverages. Parents have the right to make decisions regarding the health of the under 16 children, but in the case where the child wants to take these beverages. This is when paternalism comes in because the parent has the right to protect their child’s health and make decisions in that regard, especially due to the fact that the child is young and is not mature enough to make important decisions especially regarding their health. Therefore, the parent would use paternalistic approach to coerce the under 16 children into not taking caffeinated energy drinks. Using the Deontologist theory which is a non- consequentialist ethical theory that believes that an action is considered morally good based on the action itself and its characteristics and not necessarily because the action is good (Holland, 2015). This principle insists on the idea that some actions must be acted on or avoided, and a person must fulfil their moral obligation despite the outcome of that action (Holland, 2015). Regarding the morality behind sale of Caffeinated Energy Drinks to persons under the age of 16, as long as efforts are being made and the goal is to minimize sale of CEDs and reduce rate of obesity and other health conditions associated with consumption of these beverages. The moral duty is being fulfilled by curbing the potential consequences of persons under 16 consumption of the beverages maybe. Therefore, this action does not cause any form of harm to the persons involved and at the same time they are not treated as a means to an end. For instance, in the case of a mother and her child that is under 16 years of age, it would in the mother’s best interest and also it is her duty to protect her child from actions that could cause harm. In this situation, these age group may not have fully developed the cognitive ability to make healthy and unhealthy choices regarding the consumption of these beverages. Therefore, in this situation, it is the duty of the parent to provide her child with the required knowledge to make healthy and informed choices regarding consumption of caffeinated energy drinks, which in turn would ultimately be protecting her child from the risk of having chronic diseases associated with these beverages both presently and in the future. Deontological perspective is concerned with fulfilling the obligations and doing what is right, therefore, it could also be argued that the public health policymakers’ moral obligation is to regulate and limit harmful CEDs consumption for persons under the age of 16 (Veerapen, 2020).
2020-8-9-1597010487