Most people want to be healthy, and most people want as much freedom as possible to do the things they want. Unfortunately, these two desires sometimes conflict. For example, smoking is prohibited from most public places, which restricts the freedom of some individuals for the sake of the health of others. Likewise, car emissions are regulated in many areas in order to reduce pollution and its health risks to others, which in turn restricts some people’s freedom to drive the vehicles they want. In a society that values both health and freedom, how do we best balance the two? How should we think about conflicts between public health and individual freedom?
Perspective One: Our society should strive to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. When the freedom of the individual interferes with that principle, freedom must be restricted.
Perspective Two: Nothing in society is more valuable than freedom. Perhaps physical health is sometimes improved by restricting freedom, but the cost to the health of our free society is far too great to justify it.
Perspective Three: The right to avoid health risks is a freedom, too. When we allow individual behavior to endanger others, we’ve damaged both freedom and health.
Write a unified, coherent essay in which you evaluate multiple perspectives on the conflict between public health and individual freedom.
My writing:
"The growth of life standards in the 21st century forces society to question whether it should value the health or the freedom of its people. Some believes that society should seek for complete freedom. Others oppose by claiming that individual freedom harms public health. I strongly believed that the most ideal society keeps both freedom and health.
One common belief introduced in Perspective Two is that freedom must be considered more important than any other aspects of a society. This perspective is true to an extent. For example, when I was in middle school, the school had a policy to give its students the chances to talk freely and debate over any matters in life with not only their friends but also their teachers. The students were all excited about this opportunity as they believe their ideas would finally be heard. Teachers could also understand their students and create more fascinating teaching methods in class. However, some students used this seemingly God-given freedom in an inappropriate way. Once my classmates and I were discussing about normal issues, they felt that they were on the losing side and started to attack me verbally about my family status. They believed it was perfectly fine as they had the freedom to talk, but I became mentally unstable whenever I came to school. I ended up move to a more restricted private school. Though I did not have many choices to show my opinions on several subjects, I believed I made the right decision of caring for my health.
Another school of thought, exemplified by Perspective Three, argues that freedom should be completely restricted to avoid potential health risks for each individual in a society. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ireland, the first country to stop the harm of smoking on its people’s health, banned its citizen from selling and buying cigarettes. Since 2004 (when the prohibition was settled), the number of cases that involves lung cancer in this country has reduced significantly. Full-ban smoking was favored by approximately 68% of the public. Despite this favorable news, there are many individuals considered this ban of smoking is an act against their own human rights. Riots of the smokers were held in many areas. Cigarette sellers filed lawsuits against their own government. In 2006, Ireland had to change its policy and prohibited smoking only in public areas.
Nevertheless, there is a final example to prove that the greatest good for the greatest number of people is the balance between health and freedom, as stated in Perspective One. The case of Ireland could make a suitable illustration for this viewpoint. Since the change of policy in 2006, smokers and non-smokers live in a harmony. Smoking is banned in most of public places such as offices, restaurants, public transports, but still permitted in outdoor areas, hotel rooms, and at their own home as long as there are no other people at these places. Public agrees that this is the best solution for the conflicts between individual freedom and public health.
In conclusion, as complete freedom could damage people’s health and no freedom could violate human rights, a society should best adjust the two with equal value. When public health is endangered, individuals should sacrifice a little of their freedom. "