Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Child safety, absolute risk, and the prevention paradox|
|Authors:||Schwartz, Peter H.|
|Keywords:||Risk;Public Policy;Cost-Benefit Analysis;Child Restraint Systems;Bioethics|
|Description:||While child-saftey proposals aim to improve child safety, their possible impact is unclear since there’s been so little discussion of the amount of absolute risk and risk reduction involved in each. And while precise figures are lacking, rough estimates indicate that the magnitudes are quite small. I will argue that this risk and benefit data raises important questions about the proposals, including whether parents might reasonably believe that the small absolute risk reduction offered by the proposed changes does not justify the attendant burdens. This possibility – termed the “prevention paradox” in other contexts – highlights ethical and theoretical challenges in this area of public health.|
|Other Identifiers:||Schwartz, P. H. (2012). Child safety, absolute risk, and the prevention paradox. The Hastings Center Report, 42(4), 20–23. http://doi.org/10.1002/hast.37|
|Appears in Collections:||School of Medicine|
Files in This Item:
Click on the URI links for accessing contents.
Items in HannanDL are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.