Empirical Science Meets Moral Panic: An Analysis of the Politics of Needle Exchange

David Buchanan, Susan J Shaw, Amy Ford, Merrill Singer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The paper presents an analysis of the policy advocacy strategies used by both proponents and opponents of needle exchange programs in the US, drawing on the analytic framework developed by Stone. Based on a case study of the politics of needle exchange in Massachusetts, we argue that proponents of needle exchange have relied almost exclusively on empirical scientific arguments to build their case, while opponents have generally resorted to normative ethical arguments. Since the frames of argument are unrelated, the two sides talk past one another, bypassing progress towards resolution or consensus. By failing to address the ethical concerns raised by opponents, public health advocates of needle exchange are losing the larger public debate. The paper concludes with specific recommendations for how public health advocates should respond to the normative dimensions of this public policy issue.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)427-444
Number of pages18
JournalJournal of Public Health Policy
Volume24
Issue number3-4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Panic
Politics
Needles
public health
politics
Public Health
science
Needle-Exchange Programs
public policy
Policy Making
Public Policy
Consensus

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health(social science)
  • Health Professions(all)

Cite this

Empirical Science Meets Moral Panic : An Analysis of the Politics of Needle Exchange. / Buchanan, David; Shaw, Susan J; Ford, Amy; Singer, Merrill.

In: Journal of Public Health Policy, Vol. 24, No. 3-4, 2003, p. 427-444.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Buchanan, David ; Shaw, Susan J ; Ford, Amy ; Singer, Merrill. / Empirical Science Meets Moral Panic : An Analysis of the Politics of Needle Exchange. In: Journal of Public Health Policy. 2003 ; Vol. 24, No. 3-4. pp. 427-444.
@article{6a1cf4057c2b4b7692eaf0927793f9e7,
title = "Empirical Science Meets Moral Panic: An Analysis of the Politics of Needle Exchange",
abstract = "The paper presents an analysis of the policy advocacy strategies used by both proponents and opponents of needle exchange programs in the US, drawing on the analytic framework developed by Stone. Based on a case study of the politics of needle exchange in Massachusetts, we argue that proponents of needle exchange have relied almost exclusively on empirical scientific arguments to build their case, while opponents have generally resorted to normative ethical arguments. Since the frames of argument are unrelated, the two sides talk past one another, bypassing progress towards resolution or consensus. By failing to address the ethical concerns raised by opponents, public health advocates of needle exchange are losing the larger public debate. The paper concludes with specific recommendations for how public health advocates should respond to the normative dimensions of this public policy issue.",
author = "David Buchanan and Shaw, {Susan J} and Amy Ford and Merrill Singer",
year = "2003",
doi = "10.2307/3343386",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "427--444",
journal = "Journal of Public Health Policy",
issn = "0197-5897",
publisher = "Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.",
number = "3-4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Empirical Science Meets Moral Panic

T2 - An Analysis of the Politics of Needle Exchange

AU - Buchanan, David

AU - Shaw, Susan J

AU - Ford, Amy

AU - Singer, Merrill

PY - 2003

Y1 - 2003

N2 - The paper presents an analysis of the policy advocacy strategies used by both proponents and opponents of needle exchange programs in the US, drawing on the analytic framework developed by Stone. Based on a case study of the politics of needle exchange in Massachusetts, we argue that proponents of needle exchange have relied almost exclusively on empirical scientific arguments to build their case, while opponents have generally resorted to normative ethical arguments. Since the frames of argument are unrelated, the two sides talk past one another, bypassing progress towards resolution or consensus. By failing to address the ethical concerns raised by opponents, public health advocates of needle exchange are losing the larger public debate. The paper concludes with specific recommendations for how public health advocates should respond to the normative dimensions of this public policy issue.

AB - The paper presents an analysis of the policy advocacy strategies used by both proponents and opponents of needle exchange programs in the US, drawing on the analytic framework developed by Stone. Based on a case study of the politics of needle exchange in Massachusetts, we argue that proponents of needle exchange have relied almost exclusively on empirical scientific arguments to build their case, while opponents have generally resorted to normative ethical arguments. Since the frames of argument are unrelated, the two sides talk past one another, bypassing progress towards resolution or consensus. By failing to address the ethical concerns raised by opponents, public health advocates of needle exchange are losing the larger public debate. The paper concludes with specific recommendations for how public health advocates should respond to the normative dimensions of this public policy issue.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=1142274241&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=1142274241&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2307/3343386

DO - 10.2307/3343386

M3 - Article

C2 - 15015873

AN - SCOPUS:1142274241

VL - 24

SP - 427

EP - 444

JO - Journal of Public Health Policy

JF - Journal of Public Health Policy

SN - 0197-5897

IS - 3-4

ER -