|
...a complex matrix of legal, political, economic and ethical considerations be weighed against one another. (2) More often public health decisions are based on uncertainties, as "the information that most scientific research provides to health and environmental regulation is incomplete and inconclusive, both in identifying and in quantifying the risks that these hazards pose." (3) It is the task of public health agencies to formulate responses to these risks, identifying and evaluating the relevant science prior to making a decision. (4) Should a matter of public health come before the courts the task of deciphering the science no longer belongs to the public health agencies, but is vested in the judiciary.
If the science is ambiguous--as is often the case (5)--does the judiciary possess the requisite information or expertise to adjudicate such matters? Are the courts the appropriate venue for evaluating public health decisions? These questions are further complicated by novel and controversial sciences, which are not only contentious in their own right but often represent a battle between publicly-funded health agencies and multinational corporations. The following aims to elucidate the challenges of adjudicating matters of public health where the science is ambiguous by distilling the lessons learned from what arguably represents the most polemical public health issue the courts have faced: tobacco. This discussion will be facilitated by using the case study of what stands to be one of the new frontiers of public health policy in the courts, genetically modified (GM) crops.
GM crops present a unique problem for public health decision-making. A new area of research, the debate concerning GM crops is fiercely polemical. On one side of the debate are those warning of the risks, arguing that such risks should be avoided until further research can be undertaken. On the other side are those contending that the benefits associated with GM crops far outweigh the risks. (6) A vast amount of information has been disseminated to the general public and scientific community espousing the various viewpoints. (7) All rely to some degree on scientific proofs. Given the ambiguities surrounding the science of GM crops and their undetermined impact on human health, should a public health concern be brought before the courts, the task of weighing the evidence would be formidable. (8) Several lessons...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos
have been removed from this article.
More articles from Health Law Review
Kant's antipode: Nietzche's transvaluation of human dignity and its "i..., March 22, 2007
Possible consequences of remedy in Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser.(..., March 22, 2007
Media portrayal of conflicts of interest in biomedical research.(Canad..., March 22, 2007
Learning to swim with salmon: pilot evaluation of journalism as a meth..., March 22, 2007
Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication
name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company
analysis or best practices in managing your organization,
Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business
professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible,
authoritative information they need to support their business
goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting,
company research or defining management best practices -
Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.
|
