|
|
||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, AND LAW |
Cécile M. Bensimon is with the Joint Centre for Bioethics and Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, and the Primary Care Research Unit at Sunnybrook, Toronto. Ross E. G. Upshur is with the Joint Centre for Bioethics, and the Departments of Family and Community Medicine and Public Health Sciences Bioethics, University of Toronto, Toronto, and the Primary Care Research Unit at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto.
Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Ross Upshur, Primary Care Research Unit at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave, Room E3-49, Toronto, Ontario, M4N 3N5 Canada (e-mail: ross.upshur{at}sunnybrook.ca)
When public health decisionmakers turned to quarantine during the recent severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic, difficult questions were raised about the legitimacy and acceptability of restrictive measures to attain public health goals. SARS also brought to light how scientific uncertainty can permeate public health decisionmaking, leading us to think about the relationship between the adequacy of evidence of the effectiveness of an intervention and its role in the justification of public health action.
In this article, we critically examine the role of evidence and effectiveness in decision-making for quarantine. It is our contention that the effectiveness of a public health intervention should not be defined exclusively in (absolute and objective) scientific terms but rather conceptualized relationally and normatively in public health decisionmaking.
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |