Suchergebnisse

"An engaging consideration of the competing and sometime contradictory values that influence disclosure decisions in the lives of HIV-positive adults... [and] a stimulating and deeply satisfying discussion of the tensions inherent in disclosure stories." -- American Journal of Psychiatry "An in-depth look at the motivations, beliefs, and practices of those who must decide to get tested and if positive, whether or not to disclose, and when." -- JAMA "An interesting book that social workers need to read so as to understand their clients concerns. A recommended book for all academic libraries." -- AIDS Book Review Journal.

Two years ago, in May 2007, UNAIDS and WHO issued new guidelines on HIV testing. Prepared to meet the demands of the AIDS pandemic and the prospects of extending the benefits of antiretroviral therapy to regions where such treatment had been all but out of reach, the new guidance was the product of an extended period of sometimes acrimonious controversy both within the two UN agencies and globally. Those pressing for change had argued that a paradigm of testing that had emerged at a time when little could be done for those infected with HIV was inappropriate to the current moment. Those who viewed with skepticism, if not hostility, the claims that current practice and stringent ethical standards had become an impediment to effectively confronting the challenge of AIDS saw in the proposed changes a threat to the bedrock ethical principles of informed consent. In the end, of course, decisions about HIV testing will be taken by nation – states, with the recommendations of international organizations constituting but one element, however important, that will shape policy. Nevertheless, an examination of the history and the dynamics of the recent controversy and its outcome will provide a unique resource to those faced with policy choices; it will also provide a unique opportunity to lay bare the complex and politically charged relationships evolving between public health and human rights.

February 2005 marks the centenary of one of the most important pieces of public health jurisprudence, the US Supreme Court case of Jacobson v Massachusetts, which upheld the authority of states to pass compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare.

The issue of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and the harms it causes to nonsmoking bystanders has occupied a central place in the rhetoric and strategy of antismoking forces in the United States over the past 3 decades. Beginning in the 1970s, anti-tobacco activists drew on suggestive and incomplete evidence to push for far-reaching prohibitions on smoking in a variety of public settings. Public health professionals and other antismoking activists, although concerned about the potential illness and death that ETS might cause in nonsmokers, also used restrictions on public smoking as a way to erode the social acceptability of cigarettes and thereby reduce smoking prevalence. This strategy was necessitated by the context of American political culture, especially the hostility toward public health interventions that are overtly paternalistic.

POLICY POINTS: For more than 40 years, most research by epidemiologists, social scientists, and alcohol policy experts found that moderate alcohol consumption was cardioprotective. In the early 2000s, that consensus was shaken by new critics who subjected the previous research to vigorous methodological and empirical analysis, precipitating a bitter controversy, seemingly unresolvable despite numerous observational epidemiological studies. The effort to finally put that debate to rest through a large, multiyear randomized controlled trial under the aegis of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, generated external criticism and adverse newspaper coverage, particularly because the trial was largely funded by the alcohol industry, forcing National Institutes of Health leadership to abruptly terminate the study shortly after it started. In the absence of definitive evidence and given the contentious debate over the risks and benefits of moderate alcohol consumption, those who formulate health policy have a responsibility to clearly acknowledge to the public the existence of evidentiary uncertainty when making recommendations.

The history of motorcycle helmet legislation in the United States reflects the extent to which concerns about individual liberties have shaped the public health debate. Despite overwhelming epidemiological evidence that motorcycle helmet laws reduce fatalities and serious injuries, only 20 states currently require all riders to wear helmets. During the past 3 decades, federal government efforts to push states toward enactment of universal helmet laws have faltered, and motorcyclists' advocacy groups have been successful at repealing state helmet laws. This history raises questions about the possibilities for articulating an ethics of public health that would call upon government to protect citizens from their own choices that result in needless morbidity and suffering.