The Guardian view on calls for the blocked toes devices: Prevention in health care raises difficult questions about risks | Editorial

CAll cancer experts ’attempts will not be paid immediately to the UK to -lumping chairs in the United Kingdom. So far, no exhibition minister or party has shown his support for a step that many consider excessively restricted. The audience was not consulted. While the World Cancer Research Fund (a British charity) supports the embargo, the UK Cancer Research Foundation is committed to issuing warnings.

But with the high rates of skin cancer, and the evidence indicating the violation of the prohibition on the use of children to lie in the sun, it is not surprising that cancer doctors believe that more efforts should be made. The embargo was imposed on children who use lying chairs for commercial sun in the United Kingdom in 2010. Since then, Australia has completely banned such works. Professor Paul Lorigan and other authors condition Some researchers in the British Medical Journal claim that a law like Australian law would be the most cost -effective means to reduce skin cancer cases – even if compensation for companies is included. Evidence indicates that young women in the disadvantaged areas in northern England are especially at risk.

As is the case with activities and other products known to cause cancer or other diseases, the alternative is to impose strict organizational rules and general education aimed at persuading people to make more healthy choices. With regard to tobacco, the UK chose the ban – albeit gradually, with a draft law prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after January 1, 2009. The new law will also prohibit the sale of electronic cigarettes for children, and impose more restrictions on advertising and smoking in public places. In contrast, with regard to fast food and alcohol, the Labor Party has failed to fulfill the pre -election promises, with the delay in the most striking rules on advertisements, and England has not yet followed the example of Scotland regarding the minimum price of alcohol unity.

Public health activists are completely aware of such contradictions. And when it comes to strong food and drinks industries, successive governments to prevent diseases is clearly inconsistent with the pro -business approach.

The issue of defining dangerous activities that should be banned will always be a difficult issue in liberal society. People risk their health and safety all the time, and they appreciate the opportunity to make their choices and mistakes. However, health officials regarding high -risk plastic surgery indicated, the free national health system in the UK makes it difficult to ignore the possible negative aspects of such decisions. The choices are not simply made on the “special risks” of the individual when negative consequences and costs are shared.

And with “sin taxes”, as it is known, another type of cost analysis and benefits comes. While the fun of alcohol, and the profits resulting from its sale, are among the reasons that make the desire to impose restrictions minimal, the other reason is that the Treasury Ministry reaps nearly 100% of its profits. Fees worth 12.5 billion pounds From sales every year.

As with sun omission chairs, public health experts indicate that the poorest people are the most vulnerable to obesity and alcohol -related damage (although one of the recent surveys found that those who belong to more richer families were more likely to have the addiction problem). Attempts to change consumer behavior should never be a substitute for addressing the social and economic determinants associated with poor health, including insufficient income and housing. But it is also not permissible for us to ignore the health risks caused by gambling, ultra -treated foods, sun -lumpy fences, and other dangerous products and services. If the ministers want the public to trust them, the prevention in the field of health care should be more than just the word ton.