Empirical science meets moral panic: An analysis of the politics of needle exchange
Empirical science meets moral panic: An analysis of the politics of needle exchange
复制标题
DOI：
10.2307/3343386
复制
发表时间：
2003-01-01
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Singer, M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Buchanan, D;Shaw, S;Singer, M
本文提出了一个分析的政策宣传策略的支持者和反对者的针头交换计划在美国，借鉴斯通开发的分析框架。基于马萨诸塞州的针头交换政治的案例研究，我们认为，针头交换的支持者几乎完全依赖于实证科学的论点，以建立他们的情况下，而反对者一般诉诸规范的伦理论点。由于争论的框架是不相关的，双方各执一词，绕过了解决问题或达成共识的进展。由于未能解决反对者提出的伦理问题，针头交换的公共卫生倡导者正在失去更大的公共辩论。本文最后提出了具体建议，公共卫生倡导者应如何应对这一公共政策问题的规范层面。
The paper presents an analysis of the policy advocacy strategies used by both proponents and opponents of needle exchange programs in the US, drawing on the analytic framework developed by Stone. Based on a case study of the politics of needle exchange in Massachusetts, we argue that proponents of needle exchange have relied almost exclusively on empirical scientific arguments to build their case, while opponents have generally resorted to normative ethical arguments. Since the frames of argument are unrelated, the two sides talk past one another, bypassing progress towards resolution or consensus. By failing to address the ethical concerns raised by opponents, public health advocates of needle exchange are losing the larger public debate. The paper concludes with specific recommendations for how public health advocates should respond to the normative dimensions of this public policy issue.