This is a thesis about anti-paternalism – the liberal doctrine that we may not interfere with a person’s liberty for her own good. Empirical circumstances and moral values may certainly give us reason to avoid benevolent interference. Anti-paternalism as a normative doctrine should, however, be rejected. Essay I concerns the definitions of paternalism and anti-paternalism. It is argued that only a definition of paternalism in terms of compound reason-actions can accommodate its special moral properties. Definitions in terms of actions, common in the literature, cannot. It is argued, furthermore, that in specifying the reason-actions in further detail, the notion of what is self-regarding, as opposed to other-regarding, is irrelevant, contrary to received opinion. Essay II starts out with the definition of paternalism defended in essay I and claims that however this very general definition is specified, anti-paternalism is unreasonable and should be rejected. Anti-paternalism is the position that certain reasons – referring one way or the other to the good of a person, give no valid normative support to certain actions – some kind of interferences with the same person. Since the reasons in question are normally quite legitimate and important reasons for action, a convincing argument for anti-paternalism must explain why they are invalid in cases of interference. A closer look at the reasons and actions in question provides no basis for such an explanation. Essay III considers a concrete case of benevolent interference – the withholding of information concerning uncertain threats to public health in the public’s best interest. Such a policy has been suggested in relation to the European Commission’s proposed new system for the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH). Information about uncertain threats to health from chemicals would allegedly spread anxiety and depression and thus do more harm than good. The avoidance of negative health effects is accepted as a legitimate and good reason for withholding of information, thus respecting the conclusion of essay II, that anti-paternalism should be rejected. Other reasons, however, tip the balance in favour of making the information available. These reasons include the net effects on knowledge, psychological effects, effects on private decisions and effects on political decisions. / QC 20101115

Depuis une décennie se rencontrent de plus en plus nombreux des malades d'un genre particulier. Présentant des symptômes variés et souvent invalidants, ils en attribuent la responsabilité à des facteurs environnementaux très spécifiques : produits de la chimie de synthèse pour les personnes hypersensibles chimiques multiples (MCS), rayonnements électromagnétiques artificiels pour les personnes électro-hypersensibles (EHS). La définition, l'existence même de ces maladies font l'objet de controverses autant politiques que scientifiques, que la littérature sociologique a déjà bien décrites. L'expérience de leurs victimes est en revanche peu connue – ce à quoi cette recherche propose de remédier, en s'interrogeant sur ce que signifie concrètement le fait de souffrir d'une hypersensibilité environnementale.Quatre manières de répondre à cette question seront explorées. La première renvoie à l'expérience de l'hypersensibilité, à ses manifestations symptomatiques ressenties dans l'évidence simultanée de leur corporéité et de leur origine environnementale. La seconde recouvre le raisonnement étiologique grâce auquel cette origine est reconnue et crédibilisée. La troisième a trait aux stratégies que les hypersensibles déploient contre leur mal, qui s'inscrivent dans le double registre du soin et de la mise à distance. Enfin, dernière dimension de leur expérience : la profonde transformation des rapports sociaux qu'entraîne le fait de souffrir d'une maladie controversée. Il s'agira d'étudier comment ces quatre dimensions se nouent, à l'aide d'une démarche ethnographique et inductive. / For about two decades, the number of people claiming to suffer from multiple chemical sensitivity or electromagnetic hypersensitivity has been steadily increasing in France.T hese persons experience various and sometimes quite disabling somatic symptoms, which they attribute to exposure either to chemicals or to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields. The definition, and even the existence of these diseases are controversial. They are not legally recognized and their victims resort to self-diagnosis. However, this is not a cognitively easy task. Its implications are also far-reaching: it results in a radical change in their views of themselves, their environment and their community, as well as significant alterations in their daily lives and behaviour. It is thus an interesting phenomenon to explain for a cognitive sociology concerned with how mental representations evolve and influence conduct. Such is the purpose of this thesis. The analysis relies mostly on ethnographic materials and is conducted in a comprehensive and ecological perspective. It falls into three stages. The first one is devoted to an exploration of the controversies aroused by environmental sensitivities, so as to clarify their lack of legitimacy. The second one deals with the subjective experience and biographical trajectories of environmentally sensitive persons. The last one tries to explain the appearance and persistence of their conviction that they are hypersensitive with a utilitarian model in which emotions play a prominent role. To conclude, a comparison is outlined with other epidemics of medically unexplained symptoms.

<p>This is a thesis about anti-paternalism – the liberal doctrine that we may not interfere with a person’s liberty for her own good. Empirical circumstances and moral values may certainly give us reason to avoid benevolent interference. Anti-paternalism as a normative doctrine should, however, be rejected.</p><p><em>Essay I</em> concerns the definitions of paternalism and anti-paternalism. It is argued that only a definition of paternalism in terms of compound reason-actions can accommodate its special moral properties. Definitions in terms of actions, common in the literature, cannot. It is argued, furthermore, that in specifying the reason-actions in further detail, the notion of what is self-regarding, as opposed to other-regarding, is irrelevant, contrary to received opinion.</p><p><em>Essay II </em>starts out with the definition of paternalism defended in essay I and claims that however this very general definition is specified, anti-paternalism is unreasonable and should be rejected. Anti-paternalism is the position that certain reasons – referring one way or the other to the good of a person, give no valid normative support to certain actions – some kind of interferences with the same person. Since the reasons in question are normally quite legitimate and important reasons for action, a convincing argument for anti-paternalism must explain why they are invalid in cases of interference. A closer look at the reasons and actions in question provides no basis for such an explanation.</p><p><em>Essay III</em> considers a concrete case of benevolent interference – the withholding of information concerning uncertain threats to public health in the public’s best interest. Such a policy has been suggested in relation to the European Commission’s proposed new system for the<em> R</em>egistration, <em>E</em>valuation, and <em>A</em>uthorisation of <em>Ch</em>emicals (REACH). Information about uncertain threats to health from chemicals would allegedly spread anxiety and depression and thus do more harm than good. The avoidance of negative health effects is accepted as a legitimate and good reason for withholding of information, thus respecting the conclusion of essay II, that anti-paternalism should be rejected. Other reasons, however, tip the balance in favour of making the information available. These reasons include the net effects on knowledge, psychological effects, effects on private decisions and effects on political decisions.</p>

Many serious illnesses are linked to everyday exposures to toxic chemicals. In the U.S., most chemical exposure comes from common consumer products such as pesticides, fragranced products, cleaning supplies, and building materials--products so widely used that people consider them "safe." As the links between everyday toxic exposures and potential health effects become better understood, evidence increasingly shows that reducing exposures can create a healthier society. Although some individuals may choose to build a healthy home and maintain a healthy household, they are still exposed to pollutants at their residences from the actions of others, such as to pesticides that are used by neighbors, businesses, and governments. They need healthy residential developments in environmentally healthy communities. This research investigates "healthy residential developments," defined as a property that aims to reduce pollutant exposures to the extent required by vulnerable populations, which for this research are individuals with multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS). Through a case study approach, this research investigates two exemplars of healthy residential developments, and explains how and why they form and continue. It also examines their implementation methods, and implications for planning and policy. Primary data collection methods included in-person interviews, telephone interviews, and site visits. Research strategies included the analysis of interview data, and categorical aggregation using thematic categories within and across cases. The categories focused on factors of formation and continuation for the two healthy residential developments. Findings include the challenges of people disabled with MCS to find safe housing; the importance of planning to address these challenges; the role of individuals, funding, and zoning in the formation of healthy residential developments; the role of funding, safe maintenance, and property management in their continuation; and, the need for affordable and safe housing for vulnerable populations. Future research can address the need to develop methods to create and sustain healthy residential developments, understand and reduce sources of exposure that initiate and trigger chemical sensitivity, and investigate experiences and implementation strategies in other countries.