© 2001 American Public Health Association
At the time this editorial was written, Dale Jamieson was with the University Center for Human Values, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. Daniel Wartenberg is with the Department of Environmental and Community Medicine, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Piscataway. Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Dale Jamieson, PhD, Environmental and Technology Studies, Carleton College, 1 North College St, Northfield, MN 55057 (e-mail: djamieso{at}carleton.edu).
Current environmental regulation represents a paternalistic policy, more concerned to avoid false positives than false negatives, limiting opportunities for individuals to make choices between risk-avoidance and risk-taking alternatives. For example, many exposures to magnetic fields could be reduced at little or no cost but are not considered seriously, owing to the uncertainty of risk and the concern to avoid false positives. Even though precautionary approaches that focus on avoiding false negatives often do not lead to adverse economic consequences or irrational choices, such approaches usually are not taken. The value of autonomy and the proper role of governmental paternalism with respect to environmental policy need to be considered more carefully in environmental decision making. This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||