Search

The precautionary principle is generally acknowledged to be a powerful tool for protecting health but it was originally invoked by policy makers for dealing with environmental issues. In the 1990s, the principle was incorporated into many legislative and regulatory texts in international law. One can consider that the precautionary principle has turned into "precautionism" necessary to prove to the people, taking account of risk in decisions. There is now a risk that these abuses will deprive the principle of its meaning and value. When pushed to its limits, the precautionary principle can even be dangerous when applied to the healthcare field. This is why a critical analysis of the principle is necessary. Through the literature, it sometimes seems to deviate somehow from the essence of the precautionary principle as it is commonly used in relation to health. We believe that educational work is necessary to familiarize professionals, policy makers and public opinion of the precautionary principle and avoid confusion. We propose a critical analysis of the use and misuse of the precautionary principle.

The law is a tool used by Government to protect public health. Health is an omnipresent preoccupation, inviting each one of us to protect ourselves against potential risks at all times and in all places. The right to health protection is a source of benefit entitlements and rights-obligations that render it effective. However, believing that the law can and should regulate all sectors of human life, still a utopian belief. International law suffers from intrinsic weaknesses that limit its effectiveness. The current economic context has lead to stricter controls over healthcare expenditure faced with the ever-growing demand for treatment, limiting the right to healthcare protection. Through health law, the State has developed controls over individuals. Individual liberties tend to be limited to the cause of the public health policy. Healthy by law, raises a question: are we heading towards a brave new world as described by Aldous Huxley?

The law provides for an evaluation and a five-year review of the French Public Health Act. Among its five strategic plans, the law of August 9, 2004 provided for a "national plan to limit the health impact of violence, risk behavior and addictive behavior." Under the impetus of the World Health Organization's World Report on Violence and Health in 2000, a rich reflection was conducted in France on this issue establishing some key axes for implementation. Although we can link several actions related to this field within the framework of specific policies since 2004 (road violence, addictions, violence against women, etc.), we note that a plan on violence and health has not emerged. The lack of enforcement and application of this part of the law raises questions about the quality of the law as well as the in the role and place for the theme "violence and health" in an upcoming law.

Violence is too often considered an inevitable part of human existence. Physical, psychological and behavioural trauma has an impact not only on the health of the individual but also on the healthcare system. Largely perceived as a social problem, violence is also a public health issue. Promoted by the World Health Organisation and developed in France by Prof Henrion, the National Authority for Health and the mission led by Dr. Tursz, the public health dimension of "Violence and health" is now better defined. The Public Health law of 2004 provided for a national plan on "Violence and Health". After an initial action study, we developed a tool to coordinate public actions in this field. The group "For health, against violence in Picardy" was created to implement expert recommendations by building knowledge, promoting training and networking, and developing services to support and guide victims of violence.

Background: Family physicians (FPs) have a central role in the detection and management of child abuse. According to the literature, only 2-5 % of initial reports of child abuse come from the medical profession. Methods: The objective of this study was to assess levels of knowledge of risk factors for child abuse by Family Physicians (FPs) and the attention that the physicians pay to these risk factors. We conducted a mixed-method survey based on semi-structured interviews. 50 FPs practicing in the Somme County (northern France) were interviewed with closed and open questions. The FPs' level of knowledge of risk factors for child abuse and obstacles in the detection of child abuse were assessed. Results: The FPs' level of knowledge of risk factors for child abuse was similar to that reported in the literature. However, FPs knew little about the significant role of prematurity. Likewise, the FP's training did not seem to influence their knowledge of risk factors. Fear of an incorrect diagnosis was the main obstacle to reporting a suspected case. The FPs considered that they were often alone in dealing with a difficult situation and considered that the judicial system and the social services were not sufficiently active. Conclusions: Few FPs had actually received specific training in the detection and management of child abuse but many stated their need for this type of training. FPs encounter many obstacles in the detection of child abuse, which sometimes make the FP reluctant to report a suspected or potential case. Medical education need to be improved in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]