English translations of the reports ‘Lifestyle influencing: between paternalism and neglect’ (2014) and ‘Lifestyle differentiation in health insurance. An overview the of ethical arguments’ (2013) are now available on the website of the Netherlands Centre for Ethics and Health.
Lifestyle influencing: between paternalism and neglect (2014) Should the government, employers and insurers take steps to promote healthier lifestyles? The desirability of influencing lifestyle is a regular topic of debate. This report charts the arguments used in the public debate over influencing lifestyle and nannying, the different positions in this debate and the pros and cons of influencing lifestyle. The full report, together with a summary of the report can be found on our website here:
Lifestyle differentiation in health insurance. An overview of ethical arguments (2013)
Should people who smoke, work too hard, don’t exercise enough, drink alcohol, have unsafe sex, eat too much, play injury-prone sports or have another unhealthy lifestyle pay more in terms of premium, policy excess or individual contributions for basic health insurance? And should people who don’t do these things be rewarded? The ethical debate on these questions is topical and emotive. The aim of this report is to structure and assess the ethically relevant arguments in the debate on financial differentiation according to lifestyle in basic health insurance. The full report, together with a summary of the report can be found on our website here: http://www.ceg.nl/en/publications/lifestyle-differentiation-in-health-insurance.-an-overview-of-ethical-argum