Response bad for public health
(Letter to the Editor, Winnipeg Free Press)
Health Minister David Chomiak's response to the discovery of West Nile virus in a Manitoba crow is bad for public health (West Nile here!, July 13). A decision to fog the entire city of Winnipeg is not supported by any risk vs. benefit analysis commonly applied to issues of public health policy. In this case, the risk of harm to humans from exposure to the organophosphate
malathion may well exceed the risk of harm from exposure to the virus.
The decision to fog is not about "the most benefit to the most people," nor
even about "reducing an imminent health hazard," but it is about reducing
political risk to elected officials. While the benefit of fogging — a hoped-for
reduction in the number of biting mosquitoes — is questionable at best,
our government stands to be accused of "doing nothing" if even one person
becomes seriously ill from the virus.
On the other hand, the potentially hundreds or thousands of cases of cancer and immune-system disorders related to organophosphate exposure do not pose a culpability problem. While evidence about the relationship between pesticide exposure and serious, life-threatening
illnesses in humans continues to mount, it is difficult to prove that a
particular individual's illness or death is directly related to a particular
exposure to these toxic substances. It would seem that nobody has to take
responsibility for that.
LINDA GOOSSEN R.N., Winnipeg
(Letter to the Editor, Winnipeg Free Press)
Health Minister David Chomiak's response to the discovery of West Nile virus in a Manitoba crow is bad for public health (West Nile here!, July 13). A decision to fog the entire city of Winnipeg is not supported by any risk vs. benefit analysis commonly applied to issues of public health policy. In this case, the risk of harm to humans from exposure to the organophosphate
malathion may well exceed the risk of harm from exposure to the virus.
The decision to fog is not about "the most benefit to the most people," nor
even about "reducing an imminent health hazard," but it is about reducing
political risk to elected officials. While the benefit of fogging — a hoped-for
reduction in the number of biting mosquitoes — is questionable at best,
our government stands to be accused of "doing nothing" if even one person
becomes seriously ill from the virus.
On the other hand, the potentially hundreds or thousands of cases of cancer and immune-system disorders related to organophosphate exposure do not pose a culpability problem. While evidence about the relationship between pesticide exposure and serious, life-threatening
illnesses in humans continues to mount, it is difficult to prove that a
particular individual's illness or death is directly related to a particular
exposure to these toxic substances. It would seem that nobody has to take
responsibility for that.
LINDA GOOSSEN R.N., Winnipeg
|
