Health Care Analysis 28 (4):352-361 (2020)

John Corvino
Wayne State University
At first glance, it seems difficult to object to any program that merits the label “harm reduction.” If harm is bad, as everyone recognizes, then surely reducing it is good. What’s the problem? The problem, we submit, is twofold. First, there’s more to “harm reduction,” as that term is typically used, than simply the reduction of harm. Some of the wariness about harm-reduction programs may result from the nebulous “more.” Thus, part of our task is to provide a clear definition of harm reduction. Next, we turn to a second problem: a worry about complicity. Those who object to harm reduction programs fear that participation in such programs would make them complicit in activities they deem immoral. In this paper we argue that this fear is largely unwarranted. We use supervised injection sites —safe spaces for the use of risky drugs—as our paradigmatic case of harm reduction. These SISs are generally offered in the hope of reducing harm to both the drug user and the public. For this reason, our analysis focuses on complicity in harm. We draw upon the work of Gregory Mellema as our framework. Mellema offers three ways one can be complicit in harm caused by another: by enabling, facilitating or condoning it. We argue that one who operates an SIS is not complicit in any of these ways, while also laying out the conditions that must be met if one is to argue that harm reduction entails complicity in non-consequentialist wrongdoing.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10728-020-00407-9
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 62,513
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Against Purity: Living Ethically in Compromised Times.Alexis Shotwell - 2016 - Minneapolis, MN, USA: University of Minnesota Press.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Moral Outrage and Opposition to Harm Reduction.Robert J. MacCoun - 2013 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 7 (1):83-98.
A Harm-Reduction Approach to Abortion.Shannon Dea - 2016 - In Without Apology: Writings on Abortion in Canada. pp. 317-32.
The Moral Status of Enabling Harm.Samuel C. Rickless - 2011 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (1):66-86.
Harm Reduction for Corporations.Vanessa Correia - 2020 - Dissertation, University of Waterloo
Understanding Harm and its Moral Significance.Matthew Hanser - 2019 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 22 (4):853-870.
The Harm Principle.Nils Holtug - 2002 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (4):357-389.


Added to PP index

Total views
9 ( #920,053 of 2,446,472 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #456,659 of 2,446,472 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes