scholarly journals Bridging the Gap between Science and Law: The Example of Tobacco Regulatory Science

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (S1) ◽  
pp. 95-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Micah L. Berman ◽  
Annice E. Kim

In the 20th century, public health was responsible for most of the 30-year increase in average life expectancy in the United States.1 Most of the significant advances in public health (e.g., vaccinations, water fluoridation) required the combined effort of scientists and attorneys. Scientists identified public health threats and the means of controlling them, but attorneys and policymakers helped convert those scientific discoveries into laws that could change the behavior of industries or individuals at a population level. In tobacco control, public health scientists made the groundbreaking discovery that smoking caused lung cancer, but attorneys and policymakers developed and implemented the policies and litigation strategies that helped reduce smoking rates by more than half over the past 50 years.

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (S10) ◽  
pp. 9-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles H. Hennekens

Patients with schizophrenia have a markedly reduced lifespan compared with the general population. In the United States today, patients with schizophrenia have an average life expectancy of ∼61 years, about 20% lower than that of the general population, in which life expectancy is ∼76 years.


2001 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-120
Author(s):  
Feggy Ostrosky-Solis

The most compelling reason for studying the neuropsychology of aging is the fact that there are so many more people who are elderly. Worldwide average life expectancy has already increased more in the past 100 years than in the previous 2000 years, due mainly to public health advances which are consequently fueling a rapid population growth of the elderly. Gerontology (the study of aging) and Geriatrics (health care for the elderly) are expanding disciplines and will continue offering career and service opportunities to the increasing number people who are interested in answering the questions and addressing the problems of aging.


2021 ◽  

Distracted driving is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as “the practice of driving a motor vehicle while engaged in another activity, typically one that involves the use of a mobile phone or other electronic device.” However, other distractions not involving the use of a cell phone or texting are important as well, contributing to this burgeoning public health problem in the United States. Examples include talking to other passengers, adjusting the radio or other controls in the car, and daydreaming. Distracted driving has been linked to increased risk of motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) in the United States, representing one of the most preventable leading causes of death for youth ages 16 to 24 years. Undoubtedly, the proliferation of cell phone, global positioning system (GPS), and other in-vehicle and personal electronic device use while driving has led to this rise in distracted driving prevalence. This behavior has impacted society—including individual and commercial drivers, passengers, pedestrians—in countless numbers of ways, ranging from increased MVCs and deaths to the enactment of new driving laws. In 2016, for example, 20 percent of all US pediatric deaths (nearly 4,000 children and adolescents) were due to fatal MVCs. It has been estimated that at any given time, more than 650,000 drivers are using cell phones or manipulating electronic devices while driving. In the United States, efforts are underway to reduce this driving behavior. In the past two decades, state and federal laws have specifically targeted cell phone use and texting while driving as priority areas for legal intervention. Distracted driving laws have become “strategies of choice” for tackling this public health problem, though their enforcement has emerged as a major challenge and varies by jurisdiction and location. Multimodal interventions using models such as the “three Es” framework—Enactment of a law, Education of the public about the law and safety practices, and Enforcement of the law—have become accepted practice or viewed as necessary steps to successfully change this behavior caused by distractions while driving. This Oxford Bibliographies review introduces these and other aspects (including psychological influences and road conditions) of distracted driving through a presentation of annotated resources from peer- and non-peer-reviewed literature. This selective review aims to provide policymakers, program implementers, and researchers with a reliable source of information on the past and current state of American laws, policies, and priorities for distracted driving.


2021 ◽  
Vol 122 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-131
Author(s):  
Bob Oram

For the UK struggling to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic, the experience of Cuba’s Ministry of Public Health over the past six decades provides the clearest case for a single, universal health system constituting an underlying national grid dedicated to prevention and care; an abundance of health professionals, accessible everywhere; a world-renowned science and biotech capability; and an educated public schooled in public health. All this was achieved despite being under a vicious blockade by the United States for all of that time.


2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan M. Arnold ◽  
Wesley McNeely ◽  
Kasimu Muhetaer ◽  
Biru Yang ◽  
Raouf R. Arafat

Firearm-related injuries pose a substantial public health risk in the United States, and traditional means of studying this issue rely primarily on retrospective analyses. Syndromic surveillance, collected in over 30 Houston area emergency departments, is well suited to characterize and analyze gunshot injuries in the area in near real-time. Over the past two years, more than 900 gunshot-related injury visits were identified using this method, and ArcGIS effectively identified incident densities in ZIP codes throughout Houston. Most patients were males (86.3%), between the ages of 18 and 34 (64.7%).


Author(s):  
Wendy Kline

This article provides an understanding of the history of the nature/nurture debate that was initially of great interest to both intellectual and social historians. It presents in-depth studies of influential organization and individuals and discusses two approaches introduced by the history of science to the study of eugenics. It links eugenic concerns about race betterment with concerns about Mexican immigration, arguing that in the early twentieth century, the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) and the Border Patrol shaped the complicated process of racialization on the U.S.-Mexican borderlands. This article argues that disability is a category of analysis as important as race, class, or gender in understanding the past. Eugenics is no longer a forgotten relic of the past, but a vibrant field that addresses controversial issues from a variety of fields and standpoints.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 149-149
Author(s):  
Julia Kravchenko ◽  
Bin Yu ◽  
Igor Akushevich

Abstract There are persisting geographic and racial disparities in life expectancy (LE) across the United States (US). We used 5% Medicare Claims data (2000-2017) to investigate how disease incidence and survival contribute to such disparities. Disease-specific hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for Medicare beneficiaries living in the US states with the lowest LE (the states with the highest LE were used as a reference group), in gender- and race-/ethnicity-specific populations. Analysis of incidence showed that the greatest contribution to between-the-state disparities in LE was due to higher incidence (HRs≥1.30) of atherosclerosis, heart failure, influenza/pneumonia, Alzheimer’s disease, and lung cancer among older adults living in the states with the lowest LE. The list of diseases that contributed most to LE through the differences in their survival substantially differed from the above listed diseases: namely, diabetes, chronic ischemic heart disease, and cerebrovascular disease had HRs≥1.28 for their respective survival rates, with the highest HRs for lung cancer (HR=1.37, in females) and prostate cancer (HR=1.30). Respective race-/ethnicity-specific patterns of incidence and survival HRs were investigated and diseases contributed most to racial disparities in LE were identified. Study showed that when planning the strategies targeting between-the-state differences in LE in the US, it is important to address both 1) primary and secondary prevention for diseases demonstrating substantial differences in contributions of incidence, and 2) treatment choice, adherence to treatment, and comorbidities for diseases contributing to LE disparities predominantly through the differences in survival. Such strategies can be disease-, race-/ethnicity-, and geographic area-specific.


Author(s):  
Gopal Sreenivasan

Serious inequalities in health abound the world over. For example, there are marked differences in average life expectancy both between and within countries. Individual life expectancy varies by more than 30 years between the highest national average and the lowest. Even worldwide, average life expectancy lags more than 10 years below the highest national average. Within single countries, inequalities in life expectancy between the top and bottom groups of men, for example, have been recorded at 7 years in England and Wales and at almost 15 years in the United States, albeit using rather differently constituted groups. Intuitively, these inequalities in health will strike many observers as unjust. But why are they unjust, if they are? Are inequalities in health unjust per se? If not, what makes some inequalities in health unjust, but not others? According to an influential analysis, inequalities in health are unjust when they are avoidable, unnecessary, and unfair. Thus, if an inequality in health is inevitable, it is not unjust. Following this analysis means that answering these questions requires a combination of empirical and normative understanding. On the empirical side, some understanding of the socially controllable causes of health is required. On the normative side, various dimensions of fairness have to be understood. In addition, some appreciation of the interaction between these two sides is needed.. Each side of the question is fairly complicated. With respect to the requirements of fairness, three subsidiary controversies can be distinguished. To begin with, should a general principle of equality be applied directly to the case of health? An alternative approach traces the injustice of avoidable inequalities in health to the independent injustice of their social causes instead. Next, should inequalities be defined across social groups (such as class or race within countries or, indeed, countries themselves)? If so, which groups? An alternative is to define inequalities across individuals. Finally, should equality be defined in comparative terms (as is traditional)? An alternative is to define the requirements of fairness non-comparatively (as a matter of “priority” to the worst off). Even if a given inequality in health is avoidable, some resolution of all three controversies is needed to decide whether that inequality is unfair.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document