I agree that people's health should be their own responsibility. The reason is: 1. Legally speaking, the right to health is the most basic right of citizens. Both the right to life and the right to health are basic rights of citizens and should be freely controlled by citizens. For example, the right to life, citizens can freely control, citizens can choose to live or die, the law of civil suicide has not been adjusted, and the state has no right to interfere. The same is true of citizens' health, and the state cannot make laws to adjust or manage it. For example, if you are sick, you have the right to decide whether to see a doctor or not, and you also have the right to go to this place or that place for medical treatment. The state or government can't make laws to interfere forcibly, because this is a citizen's dominant behavior over his own life and health, which has nothing to do with other people's behavior. There is no basis for the state to intervene and manage it legally.
2. Morally speaking, it is possible for the state or government to make laws to adjust and manage citizens' health, which may violate morality and lead to unreasonable situations. Some people's diseases are unwilling to let others know, such as AIDS and hepatitis B (hepatitis B is often discriminated against when looking for a job). These diseases often involve privacy. If laws are enacted to regulate it, it will inevitably lead to the disclosure of privacy, which constitutes an invasion of privacy and violates the purpose of protecting people's rights by law.
Based on the analysis of the above two points, that is, legally and morally, it is unreasonable to make laws to manage people's health, and people's health should take care of themselves.
I am a law student and spent a lot of time writing this answer. Please accept it ~ ~ Thank you!