Toward Neo-Precaution: A New Approach to Applying the Precautionary Principle to Public Health

How Should the Precautionary Principle Apply to Pregnant Women in Clinical Research?

The precautionary principle is often invoked in relation to pregnant women and may be one of the underlying reasons for their continuous underrepresentation in clinical research. The principle is appealing, because potential fetal harm as a result of research participation is considered to be serious and irreversible. In our paper, we explore through conceptual analysis whether and if so how the precautionary principle should apply to pregnant women. We argue that the principle is a decision-making strategy underlying risk-benefit decisions in clinical research, which can be applied to pregnant women. However, the current application is a strong one, leading to the promotion of absolute exclusion or, less often, absolute inclusion of pregnant women. In order to change this paralyzing situation, a shift toward weak precautionary thinking is necessary. Instead of automatic extreme precaution, a balance will be found between harms and potential benefits of including pregnant women in clinical research.

The Precautionary Principle in Zoonotic Disease Control

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that zoonotic diseases are a great threat for humanity. During the course of such a pandemic, public health authorities often apply the precautionary principle to justify disease control measures. However, evoking this principle is not without ethical implications. Especially within a One Health strategy, that requires us to balance public health benefits against the health interests of animals and the environment, unrestricted use of the precautionary principle can lead to moral dilemmas. In this article, we analyze the ethical dimensions of the use of the precautionary principle in zoonotic disease control and formulate criteria to protect animals and the environment against one-sided interpretations. Furthermore, we distinguish two possible conceptions of the precautionary principle. First, we notice that because of the unpredictable nature of zoonotic diseases, public health authorities in general focus on the idea of precaution as preparedness. This reactive response often leads to difficult trade-offs between human and animal health. We therefore argue that this policy should always be accompanied by a second policy, that we refer to as precaution as prevention. Although zoonotic diseases are part of our natural world, we have to acknowledge that their origin and global impact are often a consequence of our disturbed relation with animals and the environment.

Geoffrey Rose e o princípio da precaução: para construir a prevenção quaternária na prevenção

A prevenção tem sido medicalizada gerando danos iatrogênicos frequentes. Isso demanda prevenção quaternária (P4): evitar medicalização/intervencionismo desnecessários e danos iatrogênicos correlatos. Apresentamos, neste artigo, uma articulação conceitual orientadora da P4 na prevenção. Geoffrey Rose distinguiu entre medidas preventivas “redutivas” (reduzem riscos derivados da vida moderna, como sedentarismo e ultraprocessados na alimentação) e “aditivas” (adicionam fatores artificiais protetores, como vacinações, rastreamentos, fármacos hipolipemiantes). O grande potencial de danos das medidas preventivas aditivas exige aplicação sistemática do princípio da precaução. Este orienta que, havendo dúvidas científicas sobre danos potenciais significativos de uma atividade, o Estado deve ativamente evitá-los, por meio de atribuição do ônus da prova de eficácia/segurança da atividade aos proponentes, exploração de alternativas inofensivas e aumento da participação pública na decisão. Tal aplicação, crucial para a P4 na prevenção, amiúde não ocorre em práticas preventivas de alta prevalência e iatrogenia.