Analyzing Health Hazard and Risk Communication

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.

The Relationship Between Risk/Hazard Communication and Ethics

A sound risk communication plan makes sure that facts are provided in a timely manner, via an accessible, authoritative source; the message must be clear and easily understandable. Studies have depicted that, institutions having sturdy relationships with their major stakeholders' profit most from these relationships in times of crises. Crises serve to magnify non-existent or poor relationships and hence, pre-crisis investment in communication represents a cost-efficient strategy for minimizing organizational damage in the event of a crisis. Six characteristics that consistently surface in communication and management contexts as measures of relationship ethics, are: understanding, trust, cooperation, agreement, credibility, and satisfaction (Sandman, 2003; Thompson et al., 2006).

Sometimes, the aforementioned characteristics, in a public health crisis, may lead to collateral damage to some other sector(s) (e.g., economic loss). This raises a critical ethical issue. International measures of public health as well as travel and trade bans may have considerable economic consequences for nations declaring a public health crisis. If a nation is morally bound to communicate, the international community must reciprocate by compensating and supporting it, as transparency in communication may cause it to suffer health or economic consequences (Sandman, 2003). One can note that this is particularly true for other vulnerable nations benefiting directly from public health crisis-related information. However, to which parties these reciprocal obligations apply, and how they may be discharged requires deliberation and justification; reciprocity may be in the form of HR support, financial compensation, and so forth (O'Malley, Rainford & Thompson, 2009).