We know, and now most people acknowledge, that police activity has some clear, and in some instances intentional, effects on health. To start with the obvious, police are instrumental in reducing the number of people who are murdered, assaulted, raped, or otherwise terrorized. Policing – like any form of social intervention – can also have unintended consequences. There is, for example, considerable evidence that criminal law and legal practices can increase risks of HIV and other harms among drug users.
These facts are well-established and pretty well recognized. So now the question is not whether policing has health consequences, but rather whether social and health workis to be seen as an integral element of law enforcement in the 21st century. In much of their day to day work, police are engaged in far more than the prevention of crime or the maintenance of social order. This is something we all know, something that has probably always been true of police work, something that is shaping a lot of programs around the world, and yet something we need to talk more openly about.
[Ed. Note. 11/12/12: Just to be clear, retweeting should not be read as an endorsement of or agreement with the content of the original tweet.]
With Election Day now come and gone, our bloggers were tweeting this week about the results, in addition to the greater happenings in health law and ethics. Read below for this week’s round-up:
Arthur Caplan (@ArthurCaplan) retweeted a post about the recent clinical trial done on chelation, a “fringe” heart disease treatment whose popularity often hinges on a patient’s distrust of conventional medicine. Evidence of the treatment’s effectiveness looks to be marginal, at best. (11/4)
Michelle Meyer (@MichelleNMeyer) retweeted an article that explained the problems in the intersection between neuroscience and law, namely how emerging technologies in neuroscience are not being used appropriately to understand criminal behavior. The author advocates for a renewed look at how neuroscience and law can work together, not only to evaluate defendants effectively, but also to customize plans that can serve the interests of both the defendant and the public. (11/5)
Dan Vorhaus (@genomicslawyer) linked to a new piece he co-authored on clinical data and genetics, entitled “The Next Controversy in Genetic Testing: Clinical Data as Trade Secrets?” (11/6)
Michelle Meyer (@MichelleNMeyer) aptly summarized the results of Massachusetts’ ballot questions with her tweet: “Sick folk in MA can now smoke pot but, it seems likely, not have the aid of their doc in controlling the timing & nature of their death.” (11/6)
Daniel Goldberg (@prof_goldberg) linked to a study done on children with epilepsy and their families. Goldberg noted that the study’s results indicate a serious “ethically pernicious” problem that in fact worsens the condition of those afflicted with epilepsy more so than may be originally perceived: stigmatization. (11/7)
Frank Pasquale (@FrankPasquale) tweeted a blog post that talked of the need to increase the FDA’s power in order to curb the fungal meningitis outbreak now affecting individuals nationwide. Lamentations of the state-based system’s inability to handle the problem had undertones of concern for future situations similar to this one sprouting up again. (11/8)
Frank Pasquale (@FrankPasquale) also published a news update from Georgia, where legislators are ending the discount on license renewal prices that had previously been given to motorists who signed up to be organ donors. While many expressed fear that the policy would decrease the number of donors, others in the medical community admitted that there had been no demonstrated link between the policy and increases in donor sign-ups. (11/10)