Back to Annual Meeting Page		American Public Health Association 133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition December 10-14, 2005 Philadelphia, PA

Abstract #112983

Patricia M. Sweeney, JD, MPH, RN¹, Clarke Thomas², Theresa Miller², Tyler Gourley², and Margaret Potter, JD¹. (1) Graduate School of Public Health, Center for Public Health Practice, University of Pittsburgh, 3109 Forbes Ave. # 210, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, 412-383-2231, sweeneyp@edc.pitt.edu, (2) Institute of Politics, University of Pittsburgh, 710 Alumni Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15260

When an emergency strikes, timely, appropriate responses save lives. In an emergency there is no time to determine who has the legal responsibility and authority to act. Protecting the public requires cooperative planning between all response partners before an emergency occurs. This is particularly true in the area of law. Understanding the legal responsibilities of each response partner, knowing who can/must act, under what circumstances and under what authority are vital components of emergency preparedness and response. To assess Pennsylvania's legal preparedness for public health emergencies and to enhance public health workforce knowledge of the laws that control emergency response, the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Public Health Preparedness (UPCPHP) and the Institute of Politics collaborated to execute a systematic analysis of the state of preparedness law and to enhance understanding of that law by the people duty bound to uphold it. Initially, 20 public-sector professionals with emergency preparedness responsibilities were interviewed regarding their respective authority to respond to a fictional emergency scenario. Analysis of interview responses identified significant legal and policy disconnects: areas of uncertainty about governmental powers, unfounded expectations for privacy and personal rights, inter-agency dependence on the products of investigation, and concerns for communicating with the public. A Status Report, analyzing these disconnects, was developed and shared with Commonwealth policy makers. The disconnects served as a “call to action” for an elected officials Forum where lawmakers discussed options for law and policy clarification. Consequently, Pennsylvania has made policy changes to enhance preparedness for public health emergencies.

Learning Objectives: At the conclusion of this session the participant will be able to

• Define the source and scope of public health power and articulate the Constitutional and statutory limitations on that power.
• Describe legislation enacted to enhance the public health infrastructure and improve the nation’s ability to prepare for and respond to terrorism or other public health emergencies. 3.) Articulate the misperceptions that characterize the decisions and actions of judicial, public health, and law enforcement professionals as they respond to terrorist attacks and other public health emergencies. 4.) Critique a process that includes personal interviews and inter-professional dialogue for revealing these misperceptions. 5.) Assess the effectiveness and adaptability of this process for improving the policies and legislation that authorize the judicial, law-enforcement, and public-health responses to emergencies.
• Recognize the legal challenges posed by public health emergencies and articulate strategies to reduce their legal implications.

Keywords: Bioterrorism, Public Health Policy

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

I wish to disclose that I have NO financial interests or other relationship with the manufactures of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services or commercial supporters.

Recorded presentation