Public Health Regulation Trade-Offs, Assessment Example

Required Behavior

Determining the required behavior of patients for prevention is an effective public health regulation method.  However, every regulation has trade-offs, and it needs to balance between public interest/ rights and public benefits.

Prevent personal injury and health care costs by requiring safer behaviors.

Making it compulsory to take caution when traveling by car or motorbike can reduce risks of injury. In the United States, and other developed countries, wearing protective equipment is compulsory. Using the “theory of reasoned action” (Dunton, Cousineau & Reynolds, 2010, p. S94), people’s attitudes toward the behavior can be changed, and outcome expectancies will motivate motorbike/car users to apply preventive tools.  Teach people to understand that the actions of others are changeable. You don’t have to be directly involved in an accident to be a fatality. Wearing a helmet can improve longevity to your life, helmets are made to comfort and ensure one’s security by doing so, and it helps you take control of your life, as it should one of the public safety concerns. Therefore, in order to successfully promote the benefits of the above behaviors, various public health policy strategies can be used.  Dunton; Cousineau & Reynolds (2010, p. S92) providing information about the behavior, decreasing opportunities for the behavior, offering incentives and prohibiting the behavior can be some of the approaches of the public health system.

Seat-belt use

Using a seat belt can reduce the risk of serious injury and death. It is recommended that all drivers and passengers use the safety belt. According to Gostin (2008, p. 19) prevention-oriented public health policies are “often understood to emphasize prevention of injury and disease as opposed to their amelioration or cure”.  Wearing a seat belt can be categorized as preventive measures. Every day around a hundred people die in motoring accidents. The use of seat belt can reduce the risk of fatality, and it is legally required to do so. By requiring the behavior of seat belt use, policymakers are planning to reduce fatality rates, emergency services, and health care costs associated with car accidents.

Motorcycle helmet use

Motorcyclists are at a greater risk of injury than drivers of automobiles. Using a helmet can reduce the risk of serious head injuries. The required behavior is to wear a helmet in order to “prevent personal injury and health care costs by requiring safer behaviors” (Gostin, 2008, p. 45).  s wearing a helmet  is already required by law, it is likely that providing information about the risks of excessive injuries can be the most successful method. When the public sees the benefits of prevention compared with the limitations of personal freedom and autonomy, they can make an informed decision.

Personal autonomy

Many support groups state that one’s personal autonomy is reduced when they are required by law to use helmets or seat belts. There are some trade-offs between personal/public rights and public benefits.  While public benefit of preventing serious injuries is evident, individuals can claim that wearing a helmet and a seat belt would affect their personal autonomy. However, by traveling without a seat belt or helmet, people break the law. Just like they are restricted from keeping dangerous animals in their homes to prevent injury, the legal system is there to protect the lives of the individual road users.

Freedom of action

The freedom of action is not restricted by health care professionals, but policymakers, and the law. The legal requirement of wearing a seat belt and helmet is designed to protect individuals. Riders sometimes feel like they are excused from accidents or feel that their liberty is being invaded upon when laws are set in place that mandate wear. Behavior change can only be achieved by holding meaningful conversations with the public. Once they realize that trading off their freedom of action for increased safety on the roads can save their lives, they can make an informed decision.

References

Dunton, G., Cousineau, M.  & Reynolds, K. (2010) The intersection of public policy and health            behavior theory in the physical activity arena. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 2010, 7 (Suppl 1), S91-S98

Gostin, L. (2008) Public health law. Power, duty, restraint, revised and expanded. California/Millbank Books on Health and the Public