Search

In this paper, we examine discourse in public deliberations in pre-development locales in the UK and US about advantages and disadvantages of future shale development ('fracking'). We aimed to understand how people anticipate potential health effects, broadly construed, of environmental toxicity and disturbance in the context of planned, but not yet implemented, energy development. In day-long deliberations with small, diverse groups in two cities in each country (London, Cardiff in the UK; Los Angeles, Santa Barbara in the US), participants discussed impacts on health and well-being using three main rubrics: 'It's money or health', 'Why take chances?' and 'Beyond the tipping point'. Throughout, participants framed health as an intrinsically moral issue, with collective responsibility as a dominant normative frame. We identify the concept of compound risk to underscore effects of multiple risks and hazards on people's sensibilities about anticipated future health and environmental harm. The findings demonstrate how and why diverse publics in pre-impact sites in both countries saw shale extraction as high stakes development that poses significant, often unacceptable, risks to human and environmental health and well-being. Risks extended beyond toxicity to broad threats to health, including, for some, the end of life as we know it on the planet. Overall, participants' discussions of health were more connected to social categories and their underlying moral principles than to technological details. This work contributes evidence of blurred boundaries between environment and health as well as the importance people place on social risks in the context of proposed energy system change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Britain, there has been an increased emphasis on the use of risk assessments in mental health services over the past 20 years. Mentally disordered offenders subject to Section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (England and Wales) are defined as posing a serious risk of harm to others. They are thus dealt with by forensic mental health services, which are often seen as specialists in risk assessments. This paper is based on original research in three mental health trusts in the South of England which was carried out between March 2009 and September 2011. The paper examines mentally disordered offenders’ awareness and attitude to formal risk assessments in relation to theories of governmentality. Service users subject to Section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 were aware that their level of risk was being assessed by professionals caring for them but were commonly unaware of the content of these assessments. These risk assessments were viewed by participants as a means through which professionals measured and monitored behaviour. Although participants often referred to levels of risk, they did not view risk screening schedules as objective, but rather emphasised the need to persuade staff that their risk had reduced. Despite showing a limited awareness of the content of these risk assessments, participants generally identified more risks, in relation to their vulnerability, than did the professional assessments. However, participants generally identified fewer risks in relation to the dangers they posed to others than did professional staff. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this paper, we examine why risk-based policy instruments have failed to improve the proportionality, effectiveness, and legitimacy of healthcare quality regulation in the National Health Service (NHS) in England. Rather than trying to prevent all possible harms, risk-based approaches promise to rationalise and manage the inevitable limits of what regulation can hope to achieve by focusing regulatory standard-setting and enforcement activity on the highest priority risks, as determined through formal assessments of their probability and consequences. As such, risk-based approaches have been enthusiastically adopted by healthcare quality regulators over the last decade. However, by drawing on historical policy analysis and in-depth interviews with 15 high-level UK informants in 2013–2015, we identify a series of practical problems in using risk-based policy instruments for defining, assessing, and ensuring compliance with healthcare quality standards. Based on our analysis, we go on to consider why, despite a succession of failures, healthcare regulators remain committed to developing and using risk-based approaches. We conclude by identifying several preconditions for successful risk-based regulation: goals must be clear and trade-offs between them amenable to agreement; regulators must be able to reliably assess the probability and consequences of adverse outcomes; regulators must have a range of enforcement tools that can be deployed in proportion to risk; and there must be political tolerance for adverse outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]