Medical advice should not automatically become 'nannying' government policy – Joseph Anderson

Sensible government policy must often walk a tightrope between civil liberties and the need to prevent harm, something the Scottish Government knows all too well.

During the pandemic, listening to expert medical opinion and subsequently curtailing the freedom of Scots, with lockdowns, social distancing and mask-wearing, undeniably saved lives. In that case, the Scottish Government had to weigh up the consequences of temporarily restricting civil liberties with the need to prevent the NHS from being completely overwhelmed by a surge of hospitalisations and deaths caused by Covid. It’s a simple choice, and one I think most people, even begrudgingly, would make.

However, the choice is much harder when the scales are more balanced, when the societal harms and health implications of some behaviours press up against the freedom and rights we are granted in a democracy. The Scottish Government has often taken a more nannying approach to health policy than the UK Government, perhaps due to the respective dominance of the Conservative party in Westminster and the progressive SNP in Holyrood.

That instinct, to restrict our choices to prevent societal harm, has perhaps been emboldened by the experience of the government during the Covid pandemic. The advice of medical professionals, when implemented, saved countless lives. Logic might suggest that the same advice should be implemented across all aspects of society, but we run the risk of robbing ourselves of some of the things that make life feel worthwhile.

Despite the potential dangers of rugby, many people want to play it (Picture: David Neilson/Getty Images)

Take last Saturday, for example. I drove my car (which expelled emissions) to my local rugby club, where I put in a very mediocre performance (risking concussion, broken bones, torn ligaments, etc). Afterwards, I enjoyed the post-match meal (full of saturated fats and too many calories), a few pints (alcohol increases your risk of heart disease, stroke and cancer) and a cigarette bummed off a friend (increased risk of lung cancer).

Just in that lovely afternoon, there are several examples of my liberties being restrained by sensible public health policy. My car’s emissions are checked every year. Rugby union has made several law changes to the game to reduce head impacts. Alcohol is heavily taxed, reducing my intake. The cigarette I half-enjoyed was in plain packaging, with health warnings, and was unflavoured – clove cigarettes, which I really enjoy, are now illegal, as are menthols. More seriously, I got a taxi home, as drink-driving laws rightly prevent me from using a car after drinking, thus saving lives.

In all of those vices, I restrict my intake on the advice of medical professionals, as only a fool would ignore their doctor. But medical professionals don’t make judgements on civil liberties – that isn’t their job. They advise policymakers on which choices would prevent the most harm, nothing more, nothing less. Therein lies a very real danger that advice can be used to justify the curtailing of any number of civil liberties, especially alcohol, smoking, and high-calorie foods.

We are all – hopefully – smart enough to listen to medical professionals regarding our health and behaviours. However, we are also free to ignore that advice and live our lives in whatever way we find fulfilling. The advice of medical professionals should never be ignored, but it is just that – advice – and we’re free to act upon it or not.