March 3, 2007

Big Brotherly Love

Big Brotherly Love
Protecting the safety of citizens is the primary responsibility of government. Nowhere in the Constitution is promoting health of citizens mentioned. (Eric Weltman, Letter, "Big Brotherly love," Boston Globe, December 17, 2006) Promoting health is a noble endeavor. But it is not "universally recognized as a principal responsibility of government."
Recall that it was the Nazis in Germany that medicalized social problems. There is no appeal from a medical diagnosis. If only the government would provide its primary mission it would enable many of us to avoid many contemporary illnesses which result from fear of not being safe, and not being safe.

Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA

Big Brotherly love
December 17, 2006
Letter
Boston Globe
RE JEFF JACOBY'S Dec. 10 op-ed, "Oh, brother":
Protecting the public's health is universally recognized as a principal responsibility of government. From establishing clean air standards to immunizing children, government plays an essential role in protecting the safety of our communities, workplaces, and environment. Artificial trans fats are invisible, dangerous, and, because there are safer alternatives, unnecessary.
Like government bans on lead and asbestos, New York City's ban on trans fats in restaurants is a positive example of public health's mission to prevent disease and injury, not, as Jacoby argues, an erosion of our freedom.
ERIC WELTMAN
Jamaica Plain
The writer is deputy director of advocacy and policy at the Mass. Public Health Association.

1 comment:

Kathy Podgers said...

Nice post. Protecting the public health is certainly an issue that deserves scrutiny. There are several categories of interest.

For example, the seat belt, or motor cycle helmet requirements, protects the individual, and perhaps my pocketbook, but not "my" health. Certainly the smallpox vaccine protected the public health for all, because smallpox was a terrible disease that was contageous. However, many diseases are not contageous, therefore a vaccine for those diseases, like seat belts, are not neccessary for the public health.

The issue of "banning" certain foods, drinks or meds, even drugs, seems to me to be along the lines of protecting the public health due, in part, to false "advertising." recently a black box warning has been ordered for over-the-counter cold/flu remedies for children.

The trans fats issue, really this should be called hydrogenated vegetable protein or oils, makes sense because of how widespresd the problem has become, and how the problem developed.

Ironically, the use of this unhealthy product, trans fatty acids, was supported and even encouraged by the health "industry" as a safe and health alternative to butter! Thank goodness butter was not banned!

Therefore, just because protecting the public health is used as an excuse does not mean that public scrutiny isn't in order.