The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion Jonathan Haidt Pantheon Books, 2012One has likely heard that, for the sake of decorum, religion and politics should never be topics of conversation with strangers. Even amongst friends or even when it is known that others hold opposing political or religious views, why is it that discussion of religion and politics leads to visceral-level acrimony and that one's views are right and the other's views are wrong? Professor Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia examines the psychological basis of our "righteous minds" without resorting to any of the pejorative labeling that is usually found in a book on politics and religion and eschews a purely comparative approach. Haidt proposes the intriguing hypothesis that our visceral reaction to competing ideologies is a subconscious, rather than leaned, reaction that evolved over human evolution to innate senses of suffering, fairness, cheating and disease, and that moral foundations facilitated intra-group cooperation which in turn conferred survival advantages over other groups. These psychological mechanisms are genetic in origin and not necessarily amenable to rational and voluntary control - this is in part the reason debating one's ideological opposite more often leads to frustration rather than understanding. Haidt also suggests that morality is based on six "psychological systems" or foundations (Moral Foundations Theory), similar to the hypothesized adaptive mental modules which evolved to solve specific problems of survival in the human ancestral environment.While decorum pleads for more civility, it would be better, as Haidt suggests, dragging the issue of partisan politics out into the open in order to understand it and work around our righteous minds. Haidt suggests a few methods by which the level of rhetoric in American politics can be reduced, such that the political parties can at least be cordial as they have been in the past and work together to solve truly pressing social problems.There are a number of fascinating points raised in the current book, but most intriguing is the one that morality, ideology and religion are products of group selection, as adaptations that increased individual cooperation and suppressed selfishness, thereby increasing individual loyalty to the group. That morality, political ideology and religion buttress group survival is probably highly intuitive. However, given the contemporary focus on the individual as the source of adaptations, to the exclusion of all else, to suggest that adaptations such as religion and political ideology arose to enhance survival of groups is heresy or, as Haidt recounts, "foolishness". While previous rejection of group selection itself was due in part to conceptual issues, one could also point out the prevailing individualist social sentiment, "selfish gene" mentality and unrelenting hostility against those who supported the view that group selection did indeed apply to humans and not just to insects. Haidt gives a lengthy and convincing defense of group selection, his main point being that humans can pursue self- interest at the same time they promote self-interest within a group setting - humans are "90 percent chimp, 10 percent bees". One can readily observe in the news and entertainment mediate that religion is a frequent target of derision, even within the scientific community - Haidt points to the strident contempt that the "New Atheists" hold for religion. They claim that religion is purely a by-product of an adaptive psychological trait and as a mere by-product religion serves no useful purpose. However, the religious "sense" has somehow managed to persist in the human psyche. One explanation by the New Atheists of how religion propagated itself is that it is a "parasite" or "virus" which latches onto a susceptible host and induces the host to "infect" others. As a "virus" or "parasite" that is merely interested in its own survival, religion causes people to perform behaviors that do not increase their own reproductive fitness and may even be detrimental to survival, but religion spreads nonetheless. …

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

Decades of research have demonstrated that diabetes affects racial and ethnic minority and low-income adult populations in the U.S. disproportionately, with relatively intractable patterns seen in these populations’ higher risk of diabetes and rates of diabetes complications and mortality (1). With a health care shift toward greater emphasis on population health outcomes and value-based care, social determinants of health (SDOH) have risen to the forefront as essential intervention targets to achieve health equity (2–4). Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted unequal vulnerabilities borne by racial and ethnic minority groups and by disadvantaged communities. In the wake of concurrent pandemic and racial injustice events in the U.S., the American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, Society of General Internal Medicine, National Academy of Medicine, and other professional organizations have published statements on SDOH (5–8), and calls to action focus on amelioration of these determinants at individual, organizational, and policy levels (9–11).

In diabetes, understanding and mitigating the impact of SDOH are priorities due to disease prevalence, economic costs, and disproportionate population burden (12–14). In 2013, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) published a scientific statement on socioecological determinants of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes (15). Toward the goal ofunderstanding and advancing opportunities for health improvement among the population with diabetes through addressing SDOH, ADA convened the current SDOH and diabetes writing committee, prepandemic, to review the literature on 1 ) associations of SDOH with diabetes risk and outcomes and 2 ) impact of interventions targeting amelioration of SDOH on diabetes outcomes. This article begins with an overview of key definitions and SDOH frameworks. The literature review focuses primarily on U.S.-based studies of adults with diabetes and on five SDOH: socioeconomic status (education, income, occupation); neighborhood and physical environment (housing, built environment, toxic environmental …

/pdf/social-determinants-of-health-and-diabetes-a-scientific-5gt7qvg60y.pdf

Social Determinants of Health and Diabetes: A Scientific Review.

This is a review of a recent book that sets out to develop and promote a new vision of law as an essential tool of public health. Part One of this volume explores Conceptual Foundations of Public Health Law. Part Two addresses in depth the conflict between public health actions and personal civil liberties, while noting that frequently these two considerations work synergistically rather than in opposition. In Part Three, Gostin presents an admittedly subjective account of public health law and proffers guidelines for the future of public health law that are driven by considerations of "consistency and uniformity of approach, mission and essential functions, powers, substantive limits, procedural limits, and protection against discrimination and invasion of privacy." The reviewer pronounces this book "a monumental contribution, from the discipline of law, to the multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary theory and practice of public health." However, the reviewer notes the controversial nature of Gostin's advocating a carefully constrained and narrowly delineated interventionist role for government, at all levels, on behalf of the public's health when interventions may conflict with the civil liberties of distinct persons, while at the same time advocating an energetically activist government public health presence when the behavior of commercial enterprises is the subject of regulation.

Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint

Obesity and impaired metabolic health are established risk factors for the non-communicable diseases (NCDs) type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative diseases, cancer and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, otherwise known as metabolic associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD). With the worldwide spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), obesity and impaired metabolic health also emerged as important determinants of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Furthermore, novel findings indicate that specifically visceral obesity and characteristics of impaired metabolic health such as hyperglycaemia, hypertension and subclinical inflammation are associated with a high risk of severe COVID-19. In this Review, we highlight how obesity and impaired metabolic health increase complications and mortality in COVID-19. We also summarize the consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection for organ function and risk of NCDs. In addition, we discuss data indicating that the COVID-19 pandemic could have serious consequences for the obesity epidemic. As obesity and impaired metabolic health are both accelerators and consequences of severe COVID-19, and might adversely influence the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, we propose strategies for the prevention and treatment of obesity and impaired metabolic health on a clinical and population level, particularly while the COVID-19 pandemic is present.

/pdf/global-pandemics-interconnected-obesity-impaired-metabolic-blrcbhrtm3.pdf

Global pandemics interconnected - obesity, impaired metabolic health and COVID-19.

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3186&context=facpub

The legal determinants of health: harnessing the power of law for global health and sustainable development

Public health law has roots in both law and science. For more than a century, lawyers have helped develop and implement health laws; over the past 50 years, scientific evaluation of the health effects of laws and legal practices has achieved high levels of rigor and influence. We describe an emerging model of public health law that unites these two traditions. This transdisciplinary model adds scientific practices to the lawyerly functions of normative and doctrinal research, counseling, and representation. These practices include policy surveillance and empirical public health law research on the efficacy of legal interventions and the impact of laws and legal practices on health and health system operation. A transdisciplinary model of public health law, melding its legal and scientific facets, can help break down enduring cultural, disciplinary, and resource barriers that have prevented the full recognition and optimal role of law in public health.

/pdf/a-transdisciplinary-approach-to-public-health-law-the-109nz4h2ty.pdf

A Transdisciplinary Approach to Public Health Law: The Emerging Practice of Legal Epidemiology

This Viewpoint discusses ways that evidence-based laws can address health disparities and halt the documented reduction of life expectancy across socioeconomic

Donna Levin

Papers

A Transdisciplinary Approach to Public Health Law: The Emerging Practice of Legal Epidemiology

Legal Interventions to Address US Reductions in Life Expectancy.