| Course | PHLT 8042 Public Health Ethics |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 1 |
| Paper type | Discussion post |
| Length | About 560 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Discussion post, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PHLT 8042 Week 1
Week 1 Discussion: Initial Post and Replies
Does the Harm Principle License a City's Restaurant Trans Fat Restriction? An Initial Post and Two Replies on Paternalism When the Harm Falls on the Eater
Initial Post
The measure I want to examine is a composite city's rule barring restaurants from serving foods containing artificial trans fat, modeled on the restriction New York City adopted in 2006. Its benefit claim is straightforward: industrial trans fat raises the risk of coronary heart disease more, gram for gram, than other fats (Mozaffarian et al., 2006), and after New York's rule, the trans fat content of fast-food purchases fell sharply with no rise in saturated fat (Angell et al., 2012).
The ethical difficulty is that the harm falls on the person eating. The harm principle of Mill (1859) allows society to restrict liberty only to prevent harm to others; a person's own good, "either physical or moral," is not sufficient warrant. A doughnut fried in partially hydrogenated oil harms no one but the customer, so on a strict reading the principle does not license the rule. Defending it requires one of two moves. The first is that the choice was never really the customer's: trans fat is invisible on a menu, its risks are not common knowledge, and a person cannot weigh a harm they cannot see. Mill himself allowed that stopping someone from crossing an unsafe bridge, when there is no time to warn him, does not infringe his liberty, since he does not want to fall. A restaurant rule may resemble the bridge more than a ban on a known vice. The second move is that the rule restricts restaurants, not eaters, and replaces an ingredient most customers would not notice, so the liberty at stake is thin.
I find the first move stronger. If customers could be fully informed at the counter, the case for a ban would weaken and labeling would be the less restrictive choice. Because they realistically cannot, the restriction looks like soft paternalism, protecting choices people would make with full information, rather than overriding settled preferences.
My question: does the "invisible ingredient" argument still work once a measure targets something people can see and choose, like portion size or sugar?
Reply to Lauren
Lauren, your case for raising the age for indoor tanning to 21 is well supported on the evidence that early sunbed use raises melanoma risk. I would push on the harm principle the way I tried to in my post. For minors, the state's protective role is uncontroversial. For adults of 18 to 20, the harm falls on the person tanning, and the risk is printed on every salon's warning sign, so the invisible-harm argument does not help you. What justifies treating a 19-year-old differently from a 22-year-old here? If the answer is evidence about risk perception in late adolescence, that would be worth citing directly.
Reply to Omar
Omar, a ban on smoking in cars carrying children is the clearest harm-principle case in the thread, because the person harmed is not the one choosing and cannot leave. That makes your post a useful contrast with mine. One question: enforcement happens during traffic stops, which some communities experience unevenly. Does your justification depend on the law being enforced mainly through education, and should the post say so? Mill's principle tells us the restriction is permissible; it does not tell us how to enforce it fairly.
References
Angell, S. Y., Cobb, L. K., Curtis, C. J., Konty, K. J., & Silver, L. D. (2012). Change in trans fatty acid content of fast-food purchases associated with New York City's restaurant regulation: A pre-post study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 157(2), 81-86. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00004
Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty. John W. Parker and Son.
Mozaffarian, D., Katan, M. B., Ascherio, A., Stampfer, M. J., & Willett, W. C. (2006). Trans fatty acids and cardiovascular disease. The New England Journal of Medicine, 354(15), 1601-1613. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra054035
PHLT 8042 Week 1 instructions, in plain terms
The opening thread asks each student to choose a public health measure and argue what kind of ethical problem it presents, using at least one named principle. Faculty expect the measure and its evidence in a sentence or two, then an argument rather than a description: does the principle license the measure, and if not, what further justification would? Strong posts admit when the principle cuts against the measure they favor and show how that tension could be resolved. A systematic review or rigorous evaluation should support the benefit claim instead of a press release. Replies to two classmates usually follow, each pressing on the same principle as it applies to their measure. Posts of four hundred words with replies of about a hundred and twenty words each are typical.
How this PHLT 8042 Week 1 example is built
The initial post opens with the measure and its benefit, citing a review of trans fat and heart disease and a study of New York fast-food purchases after the rule. The second paragraph quotes Mill on self-regarding conduct and concedes that a doughnut harms only its eater. It then sets out two defenses: that customers cannot weigh a harm they cannot see, linked to Mill's own unsafe-bridge example, and that the liberty restricted belongs to restaurants and is thin. A third paragraph favors the first defense and names labeling as the less restrictive option if information were possible. The post ends by asking whether the argument survives for visible choices like portion size. Two replies follow, pressing classmates on tanning restrictions for young adults and on enforcement of a car smoking ban.
PHLT 8042 Week 1 rubric: what earns full marks
Graders reward a principle applied honestly to a hard case. A post that cites Mill and then simply declares the measure justified, without noticing that the harm is self-regarding, misses the analytic point. Credit goes to stating the tension plainly, offering a reasoned way through it and naming a less restrictive alternative. Evidence should come from a review or rigorous evaluation and be described accurately. The replies earn participation credit when they apply the same principle to each classmate's measure and raise a specific question, such as what justifies treating 19-year-olds differently from 22-year-olds. Citation of a primary text such as On Liberty is welcomed. Concision matters in the first week, since a post that wanders across several measures rarely argues any of them well.
PHLT 8042 Week 1 help from the desk
First-week ethics posts often describe a measure and announce a verdict. Instead, pick one principle and test the measure against it honestly, even if the result is uncomfortable for your view. Ask whom the measure protects, whether that person chose the risk, and whether they could have chosen it knowingly. If the principle does not license the measure, say what additional argument would. Mention the less restrictive option you considered. In replies, use the same principle on your classmates' measures and ask them one precise question each. A post built around the measure you plan to study this term follows this pattern well.
Get a PHLT 8042 Week 1 example written to your instructions
Share the Week 1 prompt, the discussion rubric and the measure your section named; the desk returns an initial post with two replies within 24 to 48 hours, and the first one is free. A section that assigns a specific framework or a minimum reference count changes the draft, so that line belongs in the message.
More PHLT 8042 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- PHLT 8042 Week 2: Measles Isolation Ethics Case
- PHLT 8042 Week 3: Kass Framework Fast-Food Zoning
- PHLT 8042 Week 4: Contact Tracing Data Reply
- PHLT 8042 Week 5: A1c Registry Justification Memo
- PHLT 8042 Week 6: Quarantine Siracusa Critique
- PHLT 8042 Week 7: Alcohol Sales Hours Burden Analysis
- PHLT 8042 Week 8: School BMI Law Rebuttal Essay
- PHLT 8042 Week 9: Care Home Visiting Limits Memo
- PHLT 8042 Week 10: Helmet Law Versus Checkpoints
- PHLT 8042 Week 11: Tenant Cooling Case Paper
- PHLT 8040 Week 1: Septic Jurisdiction Post
- PHLT 8034 Week 1: Gas Stove Exposure Post
- PHLT 8032 Week 1: SPSS Setup Walkthrough
- PHLT 8006 Week 1: Evidence-Honest Question Post
PHLT 8042 Week 1 questions, answered
How much should a first-week post cite?
Two or three sources is typical for an initial post in this course: one for the evidence behind the measure and one or two for the ethical claim. Citing Mill directly, or a public health ethics text summarizing the harm principle, lets you apply the idea precisely. Replies usually need one new source each when they bring in a point absent from the classmate's post.
Where can I find a free PHLT 8042 Week 1 sample paper?
This page reproduces the full Week 1 post on whether the harm principle licenses a restaurant trans fat restriction, with two replies to classmates and three references.
Must the post support or oppose the trans fat rule?
It must commit to a view of what kind of ethical problem the rule raises. This sample concludes the rule is defensible as soft paternalism while admitting that Mill's principle alone does not license it.
What is soft paternalism?
Intervening in a person's choice when that choice is not fully informed or voluntary, on the reasoning that the person would choose differently with full knowledge. It contrasts with hard paternalism, which overrides informed choices.
Can I use a different measure from the sample's?
Yes, if your section allows it. Any measure works that limits a choice whose main harm falls on the chooser, such as a sugary drink portion cap or a helmet rule, since those test the harm principle most sharply.