The limits of law in the protection of public health and the role of public health ethics

Public Health

Volumn 120, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2006, Pages 71-77

  Martin, Robyn ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HERTFORDSHIRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ETHICS; LEGAL SYSTEM; PUBLIC HEALTH;

ARTICLE; DETENTION; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS INFECTION; INFECTION RISK; LAW; LAW ENFORCEMENT; LEGAL ASPECT; LEGAL LIABILITY; LIFESTYLE; MEDICAL ETHICS; MORALITY; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; RESPONSIBILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; RISK MANAGEMENT;

BIOETHICS; GOVERNMENT; HUMANS; JURISPRUDENCE; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK;

EID: 33749266713     PISSN: 00333506     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2006.07.020     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. The Department of Health website has a portal on risk research and has published on-line documents on risk (see Department of Health. Communicating About Risks to Public Health. 1999; Department of Health. Risk Literature and the Public. 1993). The HM Treasury site has a Risk Programme, a 'comprehensive programme of change to improve risk management across government' (December 2003), as well as a portal on risk guidance. The Health and Safety Executive has a portal for its publications on risk.
2. See Hohfeld WN. In: Cook WW, editor. Fundamental legal conceptions. New Haven and London: Yale University Press; 1919.
3. R v Board of Trustees of the Science Museum [1993] ICR 876.
4. Giddens A. Risk and responsibility. Modern Law Review 1999;62(1):1-10, 3.
5. Fisher E. Drowning by numbers: standard setting in risk regulation and the pursuit of accountable public administration. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 2000;20(1):109-130.
6. Health and Safety Executive. Reducing risks, protecting people, 1999.
7. Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999.
8. Intergovernmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment. Use of Risk Assessment in Government Departments 1999; 15-19.
9. Section 3.
10. Section 6.
11. Beck U. Risk society: towards a new modernity. London: Sage; 1992.
12. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.
13. HM Treasury. The risk programme: improving government's risk programme. Final Report to the Prime Minister, December 2004.
14. Health Protection Act 2004.
15. Health Protection Agency. Management Statement, January 2004.
16. Department of Health. Choosing health: making healthy choices easier, 2004.
17. Ministry of Health New Zealand. Public health legislation: discussion paper. Promoting Public Health, Preventing Ill Health and Managing Communicable Diseases, November 2002.
18. Department of Health, Western Australia. New Public Health Act for Western Australia: A Discussion Paper, June 2005.
19. Spanish National Health System Cohesions and Quality Act 2003.
20. See Dworkin R. Taking rights seriously. London: Duckworth; 1981.
21. Scotland and northern Ireland have similar powers.
22. New Directions-Report on Review of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1999.
23. Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act 2003. As well as looking to medical evidence, the person exercising the power must consider principles of non-discrimination, equality, respect for diversity, informal care, participation, respect for carers, least restrictive alternatives, benefit and child welfare.
24. Western Australian proposed reforms also recommend incorporating the principle of 'least restrictive alternative' into the legislation.
25. Enhorn v Sweden [2005] ECHR 56529/00. See Martin R. The exercise of public health powers in cases of infectious disease: human rights implications. Medical Law Review 2006; 14(1): 132-43.
26. Philippine public health legislation of 1999 begins with a public health mandate which includes: the promotion of the health and well-being of every Filipino, the prevention and control of diseases among populations at risk, the protection of individuals and families exposed to hazards and risks that could affect their health, and the treatment of individuals at risk. Philippine law prioritises compulsory treatment powers over personal autonomy.