ANALYSIS OF A HEALTH POLICY ISSUE: MANDATORY HELMET LAWS
The wearing of helmets to prevent or moderate the effects of head injuries is recommended by health for a variety of activities, including motorcycle riding, bicycle riding, snowmobile riding, and other activities. While most people, whether health professionals or not, recognize that wearing helmets (a) reduces the frequency of head injuries among people participating in such activities and (b) moderates the effects of such injuries when they do occur, disputes surround the issue arise in relation to efforts to mandate the wearing of helmets by all persons participating in such activities. The essential argument among opponents to mandatory helmet laws is that adults should have the right to (a) assess the risks associated with their activities and (b) make their own decisions concerning how to behave in the face of those risks. The essential argument among proponents of mandatory helmet laws is that the costs to individuals, families, and society of the injuries suffered by un-helmeted participants in such activities outweigh the benefits associated with an individual's right to determine her or his personal behavior (Bonnie & Guyer, 2002).
This analysis of the issue of mandatory helmet laws focuses on the mandating of the wearing of helmets by motorcycle riders and their passengers. The following section analyzes the issue within scientific, social, political, economic, ethical, and cultural contexts. The final section of the health policy analysis recommends strategies for application by professional nursing to address the issue of mandatory helmet laws for motorcycle riders and their passengers.
In Florida, the legislature enacted a law that became effective in 2002 that allows adult motorcycle riders and their passengers to make their own decisions about wearing helmets when riding motorcycles. The new law in Florida has strong support from people who believe...