paternalists feel differently. In the story of Rose Cipollone, paternalism was too late for her. She had been smoking from the age of 16, a very impressionable age, and though she attempted to quit many times, the loss of her autonomy caused the addiction to take over. Her smoking then caused cancer. The paternalistic view says that, at age 16, Roses decision may have been to smoke, but her decision later in life is to live. Had paternalistic intervention occurred when she was 16, she may not have liked it then, but knowing what she knows now, she would have been grateful later in life. This is an example of the decision being something you would regret later and being irreversible. I believe that autonomy only goes so far in our decision making. Many of our decisions are made by paternalism. There are so many policies that protect our best interests that autonomy does not have much breathing room. I am a supporter of paternalistic intervention because I have seen what smoking has done to many people around me as well as to myself. Knowing the side effects and damage smoking can do, I do not see how someone can knowing choose to pick up a cigarette. I know it is an addictive habit because I was a smoker for two years and it has been the hardest thing to quit for me. It started with peer pressure and naivet. I was in a mindset of that cant happen to me. I knew all of the horrible things it could do to you because my grandfathers and father were smokers and I looked at it as a disgusting habit. Boy, how your views change when you are making the decision for yourself. I believe that paternalism is a good thing to have, especially in cases where the outcome of the decision is not foreseen clearly....
