In addition to the closely-watched senate and gubernatorial candidates, 146 ballot questions were up for vote yesterday in 42 states across the nation. Below is a review of the some of the most pressing bioethics issues on the docket and the latest information on what passed according to Politico’s Ballot Tracker. Continue reading
By Zachary Shapiro
It seems like the debate over banning flights from West African Ebola stricken countries has become instantly political, with many Conservatives calling for a flight ban. See here. One author, in response to these calls, points to the history of Liberia’s relationship with the United States as a reason that the US should not consider a flight ban. Arguments against a flight ban that are not based on public health principles provide fodder for the talking heads and individuals who want to see this as a political issue.
The real question should be how much good a flight ban would do to halt the spread of Ebola to the United States. Many public health experts, from the CDC to the WHO, do not think a ban would make us safer.
Ebola is only contagious when the patient is symptomatic, and the first symptom is almost always a fever. If a patient does not have a fever, and is asymptomatic, they are not contagious. Thus they do not provide a serious risk of infecting other people, even in the confined quarters of an airplane. This makes temperature screening especially important. This easy screening tool is already in use at airports in Ebola affected Countries. Continue reading
As the holidays approach, I have a chance to catch up on reading. The Sept-Oct issue of the Hastings Center Report had a paper by Larry Gostin on Michael Bloomberg’s health policy career in New York, and I have seen some of a series of responses by other scholars that will appear in due course. With his usual facility, Gostin recounts the story of Bloomberg’s health department and its innovations in policy – it’s a great piece for a health law class. The piece is also typical Gostin in its framing of the issue of paternalism as a key driver of opposition to many of Bloomberg’s initiatives. And if it is typical Gostin, it is really representative of our field, since Gostin has both drawn on and helped reinforce a widely held belief that the politics of public health are strongly driven by a tension between individual liberty (inscribed legally in civil rights and culturally in individualism and antipaternalism) and public health.
In this framework, paternalism is a premise, not a hypothesis. Gostin writes, “The societal discomfort with Bloomberg’s agenda is grounded, at its core, in distrust of government influence on how autonomous adults conduct their lives.” He describes how health policy-makers are driven to rely on the harm principle to justify policies by “American antipathy toward paternalism.” Yet, and this is also typical of the discourse in our field, he also follows the Sunstein-Thaler line that ultimately denies the empirical assumptions upon which anti-paternalist claims depend: “The public health approach rejects the idea that there is such a thing as unfettered free will, recognizing instead that the built environment, social networks, marketing, and a range of situational cues drive complex behaviors.”
Public health law has been stuck here for a while, accepting that public health policy has and always will be subject to the arbitrary dominion of a mass delusion of autonomy. I think this log-jam is starting to break – and that proponents of effective health laws should be doing all they can to properly discredit and abandon this old trope. A few signs:
By Scott Burris
Here’s where some in Congress would like us to go:
The new chair of the House of Representatives science committee has drafted a bill that, in effect, would replace peer review at the National Science Foundation (NSF) with a set of funding criteria chosen by Congress. For good measure, it would also set in motion a process to determine whether the same criteria should be adopted by every other federal science agency.
Whether or not you think of this as a partisan attack on science, it challenges the idea of science as an independent way of pursuing knowledge. The fact that this is even on the table, and could be taken seriously, shows how effective the attack on science has been. It seems to reflect a terrible paradox: on the one hand, social scientists are pissing some people off in a big way, which is a good sign we are doing something right in the inconvenient truth department; but on the other hand, I don’t see a lot of people rising to our defense, which suggest we matter to fewer people than we should.
This bill may or may not go anywhere, but anyone who cares about evidence-informed governance and the ability of the US to solve its problems ought to be concerned.
By Scott Burris
Last week, Northeastern University’s effort to convene a much-needed conference on the future of health policy was a casualty of the successful manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombers. One hardly wants to make too much of a stymied conference given all the human damage of the bombing and its aftermath, but all of us who had gathered for the meeting regretted that we would not hear from the panelists, and sympathized with organizers who had put so much into planning it. In recognition of that, I am summarizing here what I planned to say there. It is a tale of two polities that seem to compete for existence in our perceptions of the politics of public health.
One public health is incredibly popular with citizens and lawmakers alike – demonstrated by polling and passage of legislation. I’ve recently blogged on this here. The other public health is the despised nanny state, big government, the sequestered and slashed-to-the bone struggling provider of essential services that don’t get no respect and don’t deserve the meager tax dollars we still pay in. We see this in budget cuts, in hyperbolic allegations of “corruption,” and in disingenuous advocacy for a radical caveat emptor regime for all legal products.
What do we make of these two radically different views of where public health now stands in the public’s regard? My claim is that the former is largely the truth – public health is popular, not despised – but the latter view is what is driving budgets and a lot of policy. The action points follow: a sustained fight to mobilize public support and win more battles over budgets and laws. I see three main strands of work:
By Scott Burris
Nothing threatens a know-nothing more than the prospect of someone knowing something. Hence there has been increasing pressure on and from some in Congress to reduce government funding of social science research. I hope every reader of this blog is aware that an appropriations rider added by Tom Coburn has drastically restricted NSF funding of political science research. That’s an ugly development, on par with the scandalous cuts to CDC that put paid to its gun research agenda years ago.
But the big funder of social and behavioral research in health is the NIH. In the past two weeks, I have heard via two different insiders that the agency is under pressure to significantly cut back on social and behavioral research, at least research with any important links to public policy. Now it is true that NIH does far too little policy-relevant research as it stands, but many fine researchers do important work related to law and policy with NIH support, and the important influence of law on health means we need more, not fewer, NIH-supported careers.
So I am hoping I am getting false information. What are you hearing?
In the wake of an election season peppered with references to rape by legislators vying for reelection or elevation to more prominent political positions: Representative Todd Akin’s woefully unscientific claim that “legitimate” rapes rarely result in pregnancy because women can “shut that whole thing down” or Richard Mourdock, Indiana state treasurer, reminding voters that when pregnancies result from rape “that it is something God intended to happen,” the deeply political intersections of criminal and health law became more visible. Representative Joe Walsh (Ill), for example, claimed that “with modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance” where a woman’s life can be saved with an abortion. Problematically, such comments to unwitting constituents parade as fact and stand contrary to vetted medical studies. For example, a recent study found that “women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.” An abstract of the study can be found here.
Months ago, I wrote that it would be a mistake to isolate these politically-charged comments to republicans or even male legislators; on inspection, recent personhood amendments and the passage of fetal protection laws expose bipartisan collaboration on laws that may be unconstitutional, undermine women’s reproductive health, and prioritize criminal law interventions over healthcare and rehabilitation. More of that work can be found here, here, and here.
Most recently, Representative Cathrynn Brown of New Mexico stepped into the political fray on rape, exposing once more the ways in which women’s reproduction can become hostage to political pandering. Last week, Brown proposed House Bill 206, a law that would criminally punish rape victims who seek abortions. According to Brown, obtaining an abortion after sexual victimization amounts to “tampering with evidence.” Rape victims could face felony charges and up to three years in prison for violating the law.
Likely, Brown’s rape bill will not gain sufficient political support for passage. Nevertheless, recent political efforts to redefine rape, blame victims, and use the criminal law as a sword to regulate victims’ responses to rape deserve serious scrutiny and sustained critical engagement.
By Scott Burris
The main contests (a summary of previous posts):
A lot of people in public health practice seem to be (appropriately) concerned about our public health infrastructure – the agencies within public health systems where day to day work is done. Public health infrastructure tends to get taken for granted and neglected. Core prevention activities, from surveillance to restaurant inspection, easily become invisible. Health agencies become collateral damage in the war on government. Our challenge here is to get noticed and appreciated – and to deserve it by being demonstrably effective, efficient, smart. Legal infrastructure is a meaningful part of this, so there is work for legal academics both in institutional design and in helping health agencies use their legal authority effectively and creatively.
In public health law (and PHLR), most of us tend to be working on legal interventions. Public health work can be pretty straightforward and even popular when it has to do with preventing proximate and substantial harms, and this is true even when the legal intervention involves changing behavior. Law changes norms and expectations, so initial resistance often gives way to acceptance. The fact that sometimes the industry whose profits are implicated can fight back, and even win, defines the hard part of the game – and challenges our field to be more legally and politically effective.
Then there is a third game, in which public health (in a not altogether new or unprecedented way) has concerned itself with the structure of the healthy society, and (perhaps to an unprecedented extent) taken on distal contributors to complex, multi-factoral health threats, case in point obesity. I’m not sure we have an effective game plan for this. But in each case, there are things we are doing poorly – or that we should think about doing better.
Challenges and opportunities:
By Scott Burris
In a well-known exchange, Richard Epstein argued that modern public health had strayed far outside its traditional and proper work of preventing epidemics and injuries into a realm of social engineering in which it lacked both competence and legitimacy. William Novak, the historian, disagreed, emphasizing the continuity of our public quest for well-ordered, salubrious (and virtuous) communities. Deciding whether public health is winning or losing in the legal arena – and figuring out how we win more often — depends to some degree on what game it is we think we are playing – that is, on whether Epstein or Novak is right.
I think they both are, and it is worth considering how. I suspect that most of us think, without going too deeply, that we’re doing pretty much the same thing that Lemuel Shattuck was doing at the dawn of modern American public health: marshaling collective resources to use data to diagnose, treat and prevent harm to public health. And if that’s what you think you’re doing, his report is still an excellent guide to making the case for legal action: evidence shows that we can prevent morbidity and mortality in a cost-effective way that does not significantly interfere with anyone’s rights and makes our society stronger and more competitive.
But law, at least, is a very good area for asking whether we are doing something quite different than our grandmother’s public health. The use of law as a tool of intervention in public health – as a way of creating safer products and environments and incentivizing healthier behavior — has exploded since the 1960s. Yes, you can find public health law at work in the early 17th century, but when I was born in 1956, there was no OSHA, no EPA, no NHTSA. No warning labels on dangerous products. No safety belt standards or laws. Minimal limits on drinking and driving. No federal clean water or air standards. An unrecognizable FDA. And so on it goes. In the great Novak-Epstein debate, Novak is right that we have a rich tradition of public health regulation, and plenty of paternalism and interference with individual rights based on epidemiological evidence of preventable harms. This is public health as sic utere, then and now largely a matter of showing how someone is doing something that demonstrably imposes costs on others. That’s why the debate Shattuck was waging sounds so familiar to contemporary ears. (And, by the way, that extends to the moralism implicit in our “scientific” recommendations about healthy lifestyles.)
But Epstein is right, too, I think, to observe that something is different. Public health is now a pillar of the regulatory state and the risk society, deeply enmeshed in the project of defining and minimizing risks great and, let’s face it, small. We deploy complex regulatory systems, some of which work and some of which we continue to defend anyway, in spite of our own commitments to evidence. As matters like obesity and inequality take intervention further and further from proximate to distal links in the causal chain, our ability to back our proposals with evidence, and evidence that speaks to an everyday sense of causality, becomes severely attenuated. Much of what we propose rests on a vision of the good – salus populi – that is as much a matter of values as it is of evidence. Failing to own that, we fool ourselves without winning over our audience.
By Scott Burris
Law has been an extremely effective mode of public health intervention in the last thirty years, which means that proponents of its use have won more than a few tough political battles. Nonetheless, it is hard to escape the fact that, in recent years, the public health side has been getting killed wherever law is made. The First Amendment turns out to create a right to mine prescription records for data (Sorrell v. IMS Health), advertise liquor prices (44 Liquormart), keep warning labels off cigarette packs (RJ Reynolds v FDA) – even operate a tattoo parlor in a city that lacks the resources to regulate its safety. With the Heller case, the strictest forms of gun control were taken off the table, and there is a lot more litigation ahead to define what can be done. The ACA case raises the possibility of future limits on federal regulation via the spending clause. In the latest and most chilling development, the DC Circuit panel in the FDA label case laid the foundation for questioning whether there is even a rational basis for regulations aimed at discouraging people from using “lawful” but dangerous products:
We are skeptical that the government can assert a substantial interest in discouraging consumers from purchasing a lawful product, even one that has been conclusively linked to adverse health consequences.
Things aren’t a whole lot better over in the elected parts of government. State and local health departments have been experiencing steady budget strangulation ever since (and even before) the Great Recession. The federal life-line, the Prevention and Public Health Fund, was raided once already by Congress, and remains a tempting target. Using the money we do get to promote legal interventions for health is under attack: with the help or acquiescence of Democrats, the long-standing restriction on lobbying in the HHS appropriations bill was changed. Despite legal analysis concluding that the old lines – educating public and policy makers is OK, just don’t push for specific legislation – are still in place, broad language about “future” legislation and threatening letters from an outfit called “Cause of Action” has reportedly chilled a lot of funding recipients.
For many of us, the succession of reverses and cuts looks like public health as usual: public health is usually the underdog whatever the topic. On the other hand, there are arguments that things are different now, ranging from the simple claim that the cuts have now reached bone to the belief that there is an active effort to put the “new public health” entirely out of business. So what is happening?
By Scott Burris
Between budget cuts and “nanny state” attacks, it’s easy to feel that public health is a perennial political loser. As for the courts, the first two constitutional amendments alone are throwing up enough barriers to reasonable health regulation to keep us on the defensive for years. In this series of posts about how public health protagonists are faring in these politico-legal contests, I will criticize our side. There’s a great deal we do wrong, or at least fail to do well, and those failures are the first place to look if we want to stop being under-appreciated, underfunded and over-invalidated. But before I put on the hair shirt, I will don satin with a post devoted to the very positive things there are to say about public health law and those who theorize and study it.
Make a list of the biggest health threats that have faced our people in the last fifty years. That list will certainly include lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, motor vehicle crashes, gun violence, communicable diseases, lead poisoning, mental illness and, more recently, drug overdose and obesity. Now consider what law has done or is doing to address these threats.