Is the Current Fine Particulate Standard Protective of Public Health?

The new annual PM_2.5 standard will be the most difficult particulate matter (PM) standard to satisfy. At issue is whether the extant health evidence supports the rationale for this standard being the controlling standard. Indeed the key issue is whether this standard will result in the most cost-effective way to protect public health. This paper examines the health literature and concludes that the evidence for the annual PM_2.5 standard is weak. The bulk of the health evidence is related to daily exposures to PM₁₀ and larger particle sizes, and there is no rational way to decide upon the correct level for this standard. It is unclear whether the most restrictive PM_2.5 standard will be protective of public health. Clearly research is needed to determine the correct PM metric, averaging time, and level for a standard. To date such research has been limited.     

Does the Wage Gap between Private and Public Sectors Encourage Political Corruption?

We present a dynamic network model of corrupt and noncorrupt employees representing two states in the public and private sector. Corrupt employees are more connected to one another and are less willing to change their attitudes regarding corruption than noncorrupt employees. This behavior enables them to prevail and become the majority in the workforce through a first-order phase transition even though they initially represented a minority. In the model, democracy—understood as the principle of majority rule—does not create corruption, but it serves as a mechanism that preserves corruption in the long run. The motivation for our network model is a paradox that exists on the labor market. Although economic theory indicates that higher risk investments should lead to larger rewards, in many developed and developing countries workers in lower-risk public sector jobs are paid more than workers in higher-risk private sector jobs. To determine the long-run sustainability of this economic paradox, we study data from 28 EU countries and find that the public sector wage premium increases with the level of corruption.     

Should Persons Detained During Public Health Crises Receive Compensation?

One of the ways in which public health officials control outbreaks of epidemic disease is by attempting to control the situations in which the infectious agent can spread. This may include isolation of infected persons, quarantine of persons who may be infected and detention of persons who are present in or have entered premises where infected persons are being treated. Most who have analysed such measures think that the restrictions in liberty they entail and the detriments in welfare they impose can be justified and this paper proceeds from the assumption that detention measures are justifiable in some circumstances. Such measures are often implemented without any compensation being given to the persons who are detained. This raises the question: What do we owe to those whose liberty is justifiably restricted (e.g. through isolation, quarantine or detention) as a public health measure during a public health emergency? More specifically, do we owe them compensation for any losses they experience? The paper falls in four main sections. The first section provides examples of the current regulatory state of affairs from the US, Canada and WHO. The second section lays out the liberal, welfarist and pragmatic arguments for providing compensation. The third section discusses the arguments against compensation and the fourth and final section provides the conclusion. It is argued that the arguments for providing compensation clearly outweigh the counterarguments and that the default public policy therefore should be that compensation is provided.     

What Does Public Health Ethics Tell (Or Not Tell) Us About Intervening in Non-Communicable Diseases?

Obesity has been described as pandemic and a public health crisis. It has been argued that concerted research efforts are needed to enhance our understanding and develop effective interventions for the complex and multiple dimensions of the health challenges posed by obesity. This would provide a secure evidence base in order to justify clinical interventions and public policy. This paper critically examines these claims through the examination of models of public health and public health ethics. I argue that the concept of an effective public health intervention is unclear and underdeveloped and, as a consequence, normative frameworks reliant on meeting the effectiveness criterion may miss morally salient dimensions of the problems. I conclude by arguing for the need to consider both an ecological model of public health and inclusion of a critical public health ethics perspective for an adequate account of the public health challenges posed by obesity.     

Does Genetic Diversity Predict Health in Humans?

Genetic diversity, especially at genes important for immune functioning within the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC), has been associated with fitness-related traits, including disease resistance, in many species. Recently, genetic diversity has been associated with mate preferences in humans. Here we asked whether these preferences are adaptive in terms of obtaining healthier mates. We investigated whether genetic diversity (heterozygosity and standardized mean d²) at MHC and nonMHC microsatellite loci, predicted health in 153 individuals. Individuals with greater allelic diversity (d²) at nonMHC loci and at one MHC locus, linked to HLA-DRB1, reported fewer symptoms over a four-month period than individuals with lower d². In contrast, there were no associations between MHC or nonMHC heterozygosity and health. NonMHC-d² has previously been found to predict male preferences for female faces. Thus, the current findings suggest that nonMHC diversity may play a role in both natural and sexual selection acting on human populations.     

Is Private Health Care the Answer to the Health Problems of the World's Poor?

Background to the debate: The global burden of disease falls disproportionately upon the world''s low-income countries, which are often struggling with weak health systems. Both the public and private sector deliver health care in these countries, but the appropriate role for each of these sectors in health system strengthening remains controversial. This debate examines whether the private sector should step up its involvement in the health systems of low-income countries.