In this article, we use qualitative data to examine the shape and nature of the online ‘moral outrage’ that was directed at a research trial that used financial incentives to encourage pregnant mothers to quit smoking. Mai Frandsen developed the research trial in Tasmania, a small island state in Australia characterised by high rates of smoking in pregnancy. In this article, we draw on data from 121 online text comments posted in relation to three Australia-wide media stories relating to the research trial in 2015. Two of the online stories came from popular Australian independent ‘mummy’ website ‘Mamamia’. We found that the intense negative moral judgement directed at the programme and the women it benefited was driven by an individualised risk discourse drawing on ideologies of the ‘good’ and ‘intensive’ mother. We argue in this article that the over-emphasis on risk in relation to pregnancy produces a conservative morality that demonise women, fails to account for the social determinants of health and diminishes care for the Other. We argue that the research programme with its incentive component was a useful alternative to more punitive risk approaches as it promoted reward rather than blame and shame and acknowledged the importance of including emotions and morality in analysing the relationship between risk, health and society.

在本文中，我们使用定性数据来检查在线“道德暴行”的形式和性质，该在线“道德暴行”针对的是一项研究试验，该试验使用了经济激励措施来鼓励怀孕的母亲戒烟。麦·弗兰森（Mai Frandsen）在塔斯马尼亚岛开发了这项研究试验，塔斯马尼亚岛是澳大利亚的一个小岛国，孕期吸烟率很高。在本文中，我们利用来自121个在线文本评论的数据，这些评论与2015年与该研究相关的三个澳大利亚范围内的媒体故事相关。其中两个在线故事来自澳大利亚颇受欢迎的独立“木乃伊”网站“ Mamamia”。我们发现，针对该计划及其受益的女性的强烈的负面道德判断是由基于“好”和“强化”母亲的意识形态的个性化风险话语驱动的。我们在本文中认为，过分强调与怀孕有关的风险会产生一种保守的道德观念，使妇女妖魔化，无法解释健康的社会决定因素，并减少了对他人的照顾。我们认为，带有激励成分的研究计划可以替代惩罚性的风险方法，因为它可以促进奖励而不是责备和羞耻，并且承认在分析风险，健康与社会之间的关系时，必须包括情感和道德。