link: http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/02/28/tanning.skin.cancer/index.html
Societal pressures have a great influence on the decisions that individuals make regarding their own health. Take the tanning salon, for instance. In today's society, tan or darkened skin is "in"; come prom season, millions of teenaged girls rush to the tanning beds, often in excess of 4 times per week; this unhealthy obsession regarding one's appearance has raised a red flag in the health community, however. Now, many of the nation's pediatricians are fighting for the proposal of a law that would ban younger children (under the age of 18) from going to the tanning salon, a fight that is also supported by the World Health Organization. The article states that, "There is "overwhelming data" to suggest that melanoma (cancer of the deepest layer of skin), basal cell carcinoma (middle layer) and squamous cell carcinoma (surface layer) are related to tanning bed use and exposure to the sun." Nowadays, dermatolagists and family physicians are seeing more and more young men and women, some as young as 19 years old, with cases of melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer. So, should there be a ban on tanning in the United States? I thought this article was interesting because it portrayed a topic that was brought up in class: that public policy is one of the most affective ways in implementing better public health. It lead me to think back to the project pertaining to public health milestones throughout history, a project that portrayed that many of the public health milestones owe themselves to acts of legislation. If tanning is as dangerous as the data shows, shouldn't the government have the responsibility to ban it, or should we be careful of causation when we say that "Tanning causes skin cancer?" So, again, should the government issue a law that bans the use of tanning beds for adolescents?
I would tend to agree that the government might have a role in regulating the use of tanning beds. Although outright banning of tanning beds seems to me to be an infringement on personal rights, there are still many other ways for the government to try to reduce tanning bed use. Perhaps tanning bed use belongs in a category of potentially harmful activities such as driving, smoking, and drinking. Each of these is regulated, though certainly not banned, by the government. Tanning bed use might be forbidden until a consumer is a certain age and tanning salons might be required to post information about the dangers of their use, much like surgeon general warnings on cigarette cartons. In this way, the public is more likely to make informed choices about their personal use of tanning beds, with very small loss of personal freedom.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily. The outright ban on tanning beds seems to be a matter of personal rights. Like we talked about in class, where do we draw the line between encouraging people to make healthy life choices and forcing them to make healthy life choices. In the case of tanning beds, there is no direct harm being done to anyone but the person who is choosing to expose themselves to the tanning booths. Therefore, I don't think there is much support for the banning in respect to benefiting the community as a whole. The only way a ban like this, that so strictly limits a person's personal rights would be possible is if the benefits to the community were significant, such as in the case of epidemics.
ReplyDeleteI also think that this article brings up another really good point about public health. That is, solving public health problems often involves overcoming social barriers. So many people are avid tanners. A ban like this would not be easy to understand for those that see no problem with periodically fake tanning. To overcome this social barrier and make people understand and value the health risks over the "great tan" they receive could cause issues in solving this problem.
With the two statements above, I completely agree. In accordance with their arguments, I too believe that banning tanning services is somewhat of an infringement on individual rights. The people utilizing the tanning services are only doing harm to themselves, unless you consider the types of peer pressure that they may jostle friends, family, (or for teenagers) other fellow students with. Instead of prohibiting tanning altogether, the government has already placed a 10% tax increase on tanning services to discourage the use and to warn individuals of the consequences of their actions. This tax went into action in June of 2010. The American Academy of Dermatology applauded the inclusion of the tanning tax as a replacement because of the significant health risks associated with indoor tanning. With nearly 30 million Americans hitting the tanning beds each year, this could be a major health concern. An indoor tanning tax will therefore serve as a signal from the federal government to young people that indoor tanning is dangerous and should be avoided, without completely eradicating individual rights.
ReplyDelete