In the past, physicians and public health officials could argue that they were protecting people from external threats. In present cases, where a person's smoking may have caused lung cancer, the question arises, "should the aim now become to protect people from themselves, rather than each other?" This idea also infringes on an individual's autonomy and could result in paternalistic behavior. Even after being informed of the dangers of certain behaviors, people will continue to drink, smoke, eat fatty foods and use illegal drugs...all for the sake of pleasure. This is not because they misunderstand the dangers; it is because they feel that the satisfaction they gain from these activities outweighs the risks. When public health officials decide that these choices are wrong, they end up treating adults like children. They become paternalistic, which, ethically speaking, is the intentional limitation of the autonomy of one person by another, where the person doing the limiting appeals exclusively to the beneficence of the one whose autonomy is being limited.
             Beneficence is the concept accepted by all physicians stating, "Above all, do no harm". This obligates those in the medical practice to help those in need of medical treatment or in danger of injury. However, since the public is being made more aware of the risks of their behaviors, some would wonder if these people should be helped. This type of thinking causes resentment towards individuals who pay no heed to warnings. It could also lead to a violation of someone's justice. The concept of justice is that everyone deserves equal treatment according to what is fair, due or owed. There are those that would argue that a person who suffers from obesity from overeating does not deserve the same attention as one who suffers from obesity from genetics. This goes against individual justice.
             As a result of society's new focus on ...