Public health action to control hazards: how good should the evidence be? Reflections on the OSHA Ergonomics Standard hearings.
Public health action to control hazards: how good should the evidence be? Reflections on the OSHA Ergonomics Standard hearings.
复制标题
DOI：
10.2190/t5yj-j1ja-rnvp-n0mg
复制
发表时间：
2002-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Lomax, Geoffrey
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Frank, John W;Lomax, Geoffrey
在OSHA关于拟议的人体工学标准的听证会上，出现了为个别患者启动临床干预的适当科学证据标准与为控制整个人群的危险暴露而进行的公共卫生保护干预所需的证据之间的混淆。我们断言，临床干预与当时提出的标准几乎没有相关性。我们总结了为什么这一前提在技术上是不可行的，在伦理上也不适合公共(人口)卫生行动来控制危害。此外，我们主张将公共健康危害控制的合理原因标准作为决定是否继续实施减排政策的适当基础，以应对对人口的潜在健康威胁。
At the OSHA hearings regarding the Proposed Ergonomics Standard, confusion occurred between appropriate scientific evidentiary criteria for initiating clinical interventions for individual patients as opposed to the evidence needed to justify public health protection interventions directed at controlling hazardous exposures for entire populations. We assert that clinical interventions have little relevance to the standard proposed at that time. We summarize for the record why this prerequisite is neither technically feasible nor ethically appropriate for public (population) health action to control hazards. Further, we advocate reasonable cause criteria for public health hazard control as the appropriate basis for deciding whether to proceed with implementing abatement policies, for a potential health threat to a population.