Is the Person-Affecting Intuition Paradoxical?

This article critically examines some of the inconsistency objections that have been put forward by John Broome, Larry Temkin and others against the so-called "person-affecting," or "person-based," restriction in normative ethics, including "extra people" problems and a version of the nonidentity problem from Kavka and Parfit. Certain Pareto principles and a version of the "mere addition paradox" are discussed along the way. The inconsistencies at issue can be avoided, it is argued, by situating the person-affecting intuition within a non-additive form of maximizing consequentialism – a theory which then competes with such additive, or aggregative, forms of maximizing consequentialism as "totalism" and "averagism."     

Using the Internet and Email for Health Purposes: The Impact of Health Status*

Objective. Increasingly, people use the Internet and email for health purposes; however, we know little about whether this varies by health status. This study examines whether sick or healthy people are more likely to access the Internet, conduct online health searches, and exchange emails regarding health issues. Methods. We conduct multivariate analysis on a random sample of 2,038 adults. Results. Despite greater Internet access, respondents in excellent/good health are less likely to say they conduct online health searches because they have no health concerns or are satisfied with other health sources. In contrast, sick and disabled respondents are more likely to seek medical information online, and do so more frequently. They are also more likely to exchange health emails with friends and physicians. Conclusions. Practitioners especially need to educate their sicker patients about the uneven quality of online health information since they are more likely than healthier patients to conduct online health searches.