Stigma and the ethics of public health: not can we but should we
- PMID: 18502551
- DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.03.017
Stigma and the ethics of public health: not can we but should we
Abstract
In the closing decades of the 20th century, a broadly shared view took hold that the stigmatization of those who were already vulnerable provided the context within which diseases spread, exacerbating morbidity and mortality by erecting barriers between caregivers and those who were sick and by imposing obstacles upon those who would intervene to contain the spread of illness. In this view, it was the responsibility of public health officials to counteract stigma if they were to fulfill their mission to protect the communal health. Furthermore, because stigma imposed unfair burdens on those who were already at social disadvantage, the process of stigmatization implicated the human right to dignity. Hence, to the instrumental reason for seeking to extirpate stigma, was added a moral concern. But is it true that stigmatization always represents a threat to public health? Are there occasions when the mobilization of stigma may effectively reduce the prevalence of behaviors linked to disease and death? And if so, how ought we to think about the human rights issues that are involved?
Comment in
-
Stigma, ethics and policy: a commentary on Bayer's "Stigma and the ethics of public health: Not can we but should we".Soc Sci Med. 2008 Aug;67(3):473-5; discussion 476-7. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.03.020. Soc Sci Med. 2008. PMID: 18423825 No abstract available.
-
Smoking, stigma and tobacco 'denormalization': Further reflections on the use of stigma as a public health tool. A commentary on Social Science & Medicine's Stigma, Prejudice, Discrimination and Health Special Issue (67: 3).Soc Sci Med. 2010 Mar;70(6):795-9; discussion 800-1. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.09.060. Epub 2010 Jan 4. Soc Sci Med. 2010. PMID: 20044187
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical