Childhood agricultural injuries: Public policy process and measures

Timothy W. Kelsey, Webster A. Hart, Dennis J. Murphy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper examines public policy towards childhood agricultural injuries and attempts to clarify some of the issues and choices involved in occupational safety policy from a non-advocacy perspective. It examines the nature of the public policy process, discusses some of the value judgments involved with public policy towards childhood agricultural injuries, and then explores the various policy measures available.The normative nature of public policy means public policy decisions can never be made entirely upon the basis of fact; some value judgment is always necessary to provide interpretation to the facts (e.g., “childhood injury rates are too high, so something must be done”). Individuals and groups concerned about the public policy issue may all agree on the facts and differ only on the values used for interpretation.An issue surrounding public policy is the determination of whose interests should be favored. Should farm families continue to enjoy their current freedom from interference by others when that means, for example, that a certain number of children will be injured? Or is the public health need to protect children more important, making public restrictions on risky behaviors acceptable? The special nature of farms (which are simultaneously businesses and homes) makes resolving such value judgments difficult and controversial. The type of measures used to implement childhood agricultural safety policy will have great bearing on the potential consequences of individuals’ actions, the distribution of program costs, and the impact of the policy. Finding an acceptable balance between voluntary and compulsory policy measures is difficult. Treating agriculture like other occupations by imposing safety rules could easily turn farming into just another occupation by stripping away its unique aspects. Relying upon voluntaiy measures, such as massive subsidies of safety equipment, may be unpalatable to taxpayers and consumers because of the huge cost involved.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)47-56
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Agromedicine
Volume1
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 14 1994

Fingerprint

Process Assessment (Health Care)
Public Policy
Wounds and Injuries
Agriculture
Occupations
Equipment Safety
Safety
Costs and Cost Analysis
Occupational Health
Public Health

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Kelsey, Timothy W. ; Hart, Webster A. ; Murphy, Dennis J. / Childhood agricultural injuries : Public policy process and measures. In: Journal of Agromedicine. 1994 ; Vol. 1, No. 4. pp. 47-56.
@article{9d4df3dd81f54a54abbd01e43fee8f37,
title = "Childhood agricultural injuries: Public policy process and measures",
abstract = "This paper examines public policy towards childhood agricultural injuries and attempts to clarify some of the issues and choices involved in occupational safety policy from a non-advocacy perspective. It examines the nature of the public policy process, discusses some of the value judgments involved with public policy towards childhood agricultural injuries, and then explores the various policy measures available.The normative nature of public policy means public policy decisions can never be made entirely upon the basis of fact; some value judgment is always necessary to provide interpretation to the facts (e.g., “childhood injury rates are too high, so something must be done”). Individuals and groups concerned about the public policy issue may all agree on the facts and differ only on the values used for interpretation.An issue surrounding public policy is the determination of whose interests should be favored. Should farm families continue to enjoy their current freedom from interference by others when that means, for example, that a certain number of children will be injured? Or is the public health need to protect children more important, making public restrictions on risky behaviors acceptable? The special nature of farms (which are simultaneously businesses and homes) makes resolving such value judgments difficult and controversial. The type of measures used to implement childhood agricultural safety policy will have great bearing on the potential consequences of individuals’ actions, the distribution of program costs, and the impact of the policy. Finding an acceptable balance between voluntary and compulsory policy measures is difficult. Treating agriculture like other occupations by imposing safety rules could easily turn farming into just another occupation by stripping away its unique aspects. Relying upon voluntaiy measures, such as massive subsidies of safety equipment, may be unpalatable to taxpayers and consumers because of the huge cost involved.",
author = "Kelsey, {Timothy W.} and Hart, {Webster A.} and Murphy, {Dennis J.}",
year = "1994",
month = "12",
day = "14",
doi = "10.1300/J096v01n04_05",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "1",
pages = "47--56",
journal = "Journal of Agromedicine",
issn = "1059-924X",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "4",

}

Childhood agricultural injuries : Public policy process and measures. / Kelsey, Timothy W.; Hart, Webster A.; Murphy, Dennis J.

In: Journal of Agromedicine, Vol. 1, No. 4, 14.12.1994, p. 47-56.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Childhood agricultural injuries

T2 - Public policy process and measures

AU - Kelsey, Timothy W.

AU - Hart, Webster A.

AU - Murphy, Dennis J.

PY - 1994/12/14

Y1 - 1994/12/14

N2 - This paper examines public policy towards childhood agricultural injuries and attempts to clarify some of the issues and choices involved in occupational safety policy from a non-advocacy perspective. It examines the nature of the public policy process, discusses some of the value judgments involved with public policy towards childhood agricultural injuries, and then explores the various policy measures available.The normative nature of public policy means public policy decisions can never be made entirely upon the basis of fact; some value judgment is always necessary to provide interpretation to the facts (e.g., “childhood injury rates are too high, so something must be done”). Individuals and groups concerned about the public policy issue may all agree on the facts and differ only on the values used for interpretation.An issue surrounding public policy is the determination of whose interests should be favored. Should farm families continue to enjoy their current freedom from interference by others when that means, for example, that a certain number of children will be injured? Or is the public health need to protect children more important, making public restrictions on risky behaviors acceptable? The special nature of farms (which are simultaneously businesses and homes) makes resolving such value judgments difficult and controversial. The type of measures used to implement childhood agricultural safety policy will have great bearing on the potential consequences of individuals’ actions, the distribution of program costs, and the impact of the policy. Finding an acceptable balance between voluntary and compulsory policy measures is difficult. Treating agriculture like other occupations by imposing safety rules could easily turn farming into just another occupation by stripping away its unique aspects. Relying upon voluntaiy measures, such as massive subsidies of safety equipment, may be unpalatable to taxpayers and consumers because of the huge cost involved.

AB - This paper examines public policy towards childhood agricultural injuries and attempts to clarify some of the issues and choices involved in occupational safety policy from a non-advocacy perspective. It examines the nature of the public policy process, discusses some of the value judgments involved with public policy towards childhood agricultural injuries, and then explores the various policy measures available.The normative nature of public policy means public policy decisions can never be made entirely upon the basis of fact; some value judgment is always necessary to provide interpretation to the facts (e.g., “childhood injury rates are too high, so something must be done”). Individuals and groups concerned about the public policy issue may all agree on the facts and differ only on the values used for interpretation.An issue surrounding public policy is the determination of whose interests should be favored. Should farm families continue to enjoy their current freedom from interference by others when that means, for example, that a certain number of children will be injured? Or is the public health need to protect children more important, making public restrictions on risky behaviors acceptable? The special nature of farms (which are simultaneously businesses and homes) makes resolving such value judgments difficult and controversial. The type of measures used to implement childhood agricultural safety policy will have great bearing on the potential consequences of individuals’ actions, the distribution of program costs, and the impact of the policy. Finding an acceptable balance between voluntary and compulsory policy measures is difficult. Treating agriculture like other occupations by imposing safety rules could easily turn farming into just another occupation by stripping away its unique aspects. Relying upon voluntaiy measures, such as massive subsidies of safety equipment, may be unpalatable to taxpayers and consumers because of the huge cost involved.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037784178&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037784178&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1300/J096v01n04_05

DO - 10.1300/J096v01n04_05

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0037784178

VL - 1

SP - 47

EP - 56

JO - Journal of Agromedicine

JF - Journal of Agromedicine

SN - 1059-924X

IS - 4

ER -