Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #policyadvocacy
Most recents (3)
This is a fascinating response from Dr. Miller, from whose work I've learned much over the years!
Some thoughts:
1/
Some thoughts:
1/
I agree with Dr. Miller that the utility of ethicists in the #RoomWhereItHappens for public health emergency policy response ought not be assumed. That said, I strongly believe that an appropriately-trained ethicist can be helpful, at least in the following ways:
2/
2/
(1) Trained ethicists often have facilitation skills, specifically as regards to complex normative and ethical problems unfolding in urgent or emergent contexts. Applied ethicists in practice almost never dictate or pronounce conclusion -- if they are practicing well IMO.
3/
3/
There's a lot in this thread, but one pt I'd like to extract is connected to something I've been arguing for years and #onhere quite a bit recently:
#MethodologicalIndividualism in public health occurs where we position the individual as the unit of change.
1/
#MethodologicalIndividualism in public health occurs where we position the individual as the unit of change.
1/
This is in comparison to structural interventions, which often alter upstream factors and institutions. My favorite example of the latter is laws and policies, but can also include infrastructure and built environmental changes, etc.
2/
2/
But leading public health officials in the US have completely followed the #MethodologicalIndividualism that has dominated public health policy and priorities for much of the 20th c. until now. See:
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19965565/
3/
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19965565/
3/
I see that we are still slavishly worshipping at the idol of RCTs in epidemiologic science as the evidentiary warrant for public health action. I have written LOTS on the foolishness of this, its disastrous ethical & policy implications, & it's role in #ManufactureOfDoubt.
1/
1/
It's almost as if people have never heard of the #PrecautionaryPrinciple. If we demanded evidence of exposure-harm or intervention-benefit that flowed from RCTs to warrant public health interventions, we would have essentially NO public health action AT ALL.
2/
2/
More on this, from my 2016 paper on importance of maintaining epistemically reasonable standards for proof of harm (& benefit!) as warrant for public health action:
(The subject of the paper is COIs and lays out my arg for regarding them as ordinary epidemiologic exposures)
3/
(The subject of the paper is COIs and lays out my arg for regarding them as ordinary epidemiologic exposures)
3/
