The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, a group of respected academics, thinks that the Government is not doing enough to help people to live healthy lives. That is surprising. There has never been so much information about what to eat, how to exercise, where to get vaccinations and how much to drink — supplied in dozens of different languages. Many local authorities now send out thermometers to retired people with advice on the exact temperature at which to keep their homes. From next year, an army of government-funded “travel advisers” will go from house to house asking about travel habits and encouraging walking and cycling. The messages are loud, clear, relentless and increasingly intrusive.

The question that the council seeks to address is what to do if, despite all this bossiness, people still do not change their behaviour. This is a question of great importance to many in the public sector, especially health professionals who fear that NHS budgets may be swamped by a wave of obese people with diabetes. Yet budgets are also burdened by those who have chosen to indulge in dangerous sports, those who are ageing gracelessly, and those whose brains are particularly sensitive to cannabis. Why is it so difficult to accept that the answer may sometimes be that the State should do nothing?

John Stuart Mill held that the only justification for state coercion was to prevent harm, or “evil”, being done to others. It is a stretch to say that eating too many hamburgers, or smoking at home, meets that definition. Yet in seeking to modernise Mill, the Nuffield group comes dangerously close to arguing such a line. The academics agree that the State “should not attempt to coerce adults to lead healthy lives”. They (rightly) oppose compulsory vaccinations or fluoridation. But they also argue that “vulnerable people” need protection from damaging their health, a category that could be defined very widely indeed. The declaration that “the Government has a duty to look after the health of everyone” is also open to malign interpretation.

The danger is that this kind of well-meaning pseudo-philosophy will be used by those who wish to continue to chip away at individual freedoms. The Nuffield proposal that architects and town planners should be “trained to encourage people to be physically active” is a nonsense. Its suggestion that a mother whose children are sensitive to smoke should be prevented by court order from smoking at home is alarmingly draconian (although even it admits that this might prove unworkable). The idea of raising alcohol taxes makes little sense when Britain already has the second highest tax rate in Europe.

Excessive drinking is a worry. But the number of people consuming more than the daily guidelines seems to be falling. The Nuffield academics may find that they are behind the times. McDonald's and other outlets have introduced healthier meals as a result of consumer pressure, not regulation. Sales of organic food are booming. There is bound to be a time-lag between information campaigns and changes in behaviour. But given the right information, individuals will generally act with moderation and common sense in the interests of their families. If they choose not to, that is surely up to them.

It is not the British people who need treatment, it is Government — for its hyperactive insistence on interfering in private lives. The sooner that it kicks that bureaucratic habit, the healthier society will be.