Ethical communication and public trust during health crises

Health Hazard/Risk Communication

The term "risk communication" denotes any purposeful avoidance of risk-related information exchange between concerned parties. In this context, it (avoiding risk/hazard communication) may be defined as an act of transmitting or conveying information to parties in various areas including: environmental or health risk levels, meaning/significance of environmental or health risks, and actions, policies or decisions endeavoring to manage or control environmental or health risks. Concerned parties include scientists, government, industry groups, agencies, corporations, unions, professional organizations, scientists, the media, individual citizens, and interested groups (Florini, 2007).

Justification for Lying or Withholding Risk/Hazard Information

In the past, one could adopt an 'experts know best' stance and merely inform citizens that, while one has identified a risk, they need not worry, and simply state how authorities are planning to deal with it. Today's public is not automatically acquiescent to authority figures, and demands to be more closely involved when it comes to making decisions (Florini, 2007; Thompson, Faith, Gibson & Upshur, 2006).

The SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) epidemic that shook the world in 2003 represents one of the recent examples of the benefits and risks associated with open information, when it comes to public health threats. Authorities' hesitancy in acknowledging and communicating a possible crisis in the epidemic's first stages facilitated quick diffusion of the syndrome across the globe. By contrast, ultimate international control and transmission stoppage was found to be rooted in community surveillance, behavioral adjustments, and public awareness (Huang, 2004).

As far as this essay is concerned, there is no justification for lying or information withholding for health hazard, mainly because of the threat they pose. However, to minimize public panic and enable adoption of the relevant measures, information should be provided to the right and relevant authorities and to the public, only on a 'need-to-know' basis.

Conclusion

Strategic, public health, and ethical imperatives indicate the necessity of transparency in communicating information during public health crises. Strategic information communication is a primary tool for public health crisis management, and should be acknowledged as such. Concurrently, it must be acknowledged that, when it comes to practical application, global public health fails at matching reality and rhetoric frequently, and that novel realistic steps are needed for addressing these failings. While not being an assurance of transparency in itself, the formulation of a policy concerning public health crisis information by concerned authorities represents a sensible step that may aid governments in fulfilling their obligations in times of public health crises.