Hi Mark:

You work on the assumption that "policy follows evidence".  I suggest the
opposite is likely more accurate: "Evidence follows policy" in that once
the powers-that-be have made a decision based on ideology and values, then
they seek evidence to justify the action.  The evidence about the social
deteminants of health has been around since 1850.  Some jurisdictions act
upon this; others do not.  Do you think that one more study is going to
convince policymakers to implement something that goes against their world
view?

How much evidence would be necessary to develop family-friendly policies in
the USA?  Or what study would convince Americans to reinstitute useful
progressive tax policies? Or why are labour unions disdained in some
nations despite their profound positive effect upon individual health and
healthy public policy?

Thanks for the debate!

dennis

-------------------
Problems/Questions? Send it to Listserv owner: [log in to unmask]


To unsubscribe, send the following message in the text section -- NOT the subject header --  to [log in to unmask]
SIGNOFF SDOH

DO NOT SEND IT BY HITTING THE REPLY BUTTON. THIS SENDS THE MESSAGE TO THE ENTIRE LISTSERV AND STILL DOES NOT REMOVE YOU.

To subscribe to the SDOH list, send the following message to [log in to unmask] in the text section, NOT in the subject header.
SUBSCRIBE SDOH yourfirstname yourlastname

To post a message to all 1000+ subscribers, send it to [log in to unmask]
Include in the Subject, its content, and location and date, if relevant.

For a list of SDOH members, send a request to [log in to unmask]

To receive messages only once a day, send the following message to [log in to unmask]
SET SDOH DIGEST

To view the SDOH archives, go to: http://listserv.yorku.ca/archives/sdoh.html