Helmets or not? Use science correctly

In a recent article, Hooper and Spicer make several arguments against legislation that would mandate the use of bicycle helmets. While they present reasonable objections to the utilitarian as well as the justice defence of such legislation, their review of the empirical evidence contains inaccuracie...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Trégouët, Paul (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: BMJ Publ. 2015
In: Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2015, Volume: 41, Issue: 8, Pages: 718-719
Online Access: Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Description
Summary:In a recent article, Hooper and Spicer make several arguments against legislation that would mandate the use of bicycle helmets. While they present reasonable objections to the utilitarian as well as the justice defence of such legislation, their review of the empirical evidence contains inaccuracies, omissions and a bias in the selection of empirical data. While there are legitimate reasons to argue against mandating helmet legislation, these arguments should still be based on clinically and scientifically sound evidence.
ISSN:1473-4257
Contains:Enthalten in: Journal of medical ethics
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2013-101521