Lagging and Flagging: Air Pollution, Shale Gas Exploration and the Interaction of Policy, Science, Ethics and Environmental Justice in England.

The science on the effects of global climate change and air pollution on morbidity and mortality is clear and debate now centres around the scale and precise contributions of particular pollutants. Sufficient data existed in recent decades to support the adoption of precautionary public health policies relating to fossil fuels including shale exploration. Yet air quality and related public health impacts linked to ethical and environmental justice elements are often marginalized or missing in planning and associated decision making. Industry and government policies and practices, laws and planning regulations lagged well behind the science in the United Kingdom. This paper explores the reasons for this and what shaped some of those policies. Why did shale gas policies in England fail to fully address public health priorities and neglect ethical and environmental justice concerns. To answer this question, an interdisciplinary analysis is needed informed by a theoretical framework of how air pollution and climate change are largely discounted in the complex realpolitik of policy and regulation for shale gas development in England. Sources, including official government, regulatory and planning documents, as well as industry and scientific publications are examined and benchmarked against the science and ethical and environmental justice criteria. Further, our typology illustrates how the process works drawing on an analysis of official policy documents and statements on planning and regulatory oversight of shale exploration in England, and material from industry and their consultants relating to proposed shale oil and gas development. Currently the oil, gas and chemical industries in England continue to dominate and influence energy and feedstock-related policy making to the detriment of ethical and environmental justice decision making with significant consequences for public health.

Public Health and Unconventional Oil and Gas Extraction Including Fracking: Global Lessons from a Scottish Government Review.

Unconventional oil and gas extraction (UOGE) including fracking for shale gas is underway in North America on a large scale, and in Australia and some other countries. It is viewed as a major source of global energy needs by proponents. Critics consider fracking and UOGE an immediate and long-term threat to global, national, and regional public health and climate. Rarely have governments brought together relatively detailed assessments of direct and indirect public health risks associated with fracking and weighed these against potential benefits to inform a national debate on whether to pursue this energy route. The Scottish government has now done so in a wide-ranging consultation underpinned by a variety of reports on unconventional gas extraction including fracking. This paper analyses the Scottish government approach from inception to conclusion, and from procedures to outcomes. The reports commissioned by the Scottish government include a comprehensive review dedicated specifically to public health as well as reports on climate change, economic impacts, transport, geology, and decommissioning. All these reports are relevant to public health, and taken together offer a comprehensive review of existing evidence. The approach is unique globally when compared with UOGE assessments conducted in the USA, Australia, Canada, and England. The review process builds a useful evidence base although it is not without flaws. The process approach, if not the content, offers a framework that may have merits globally.

The U.K.'s "Dash for Gas".

The evidence on public health regulation of the unconventional gas extraction (fracking) industry was examined using a rapid evidence assessment of fifteen case studies from multiple countries. They included scientific and academic papers, professional reports, government agency reports, industry and industry-funded reports, and a nongovernment organization report. Each case study review was structured to address strengths and weaknesses of the publication in relation to our research questions. Some case studies emphasized inherent industry short-, medium-, and long-term dangers to public health directly and through global climate change impacts. Other case studies argued that fracking could be conducted safely assuming industry best practice, "robust" regulation, and mitigation, but the evidence base for such statements proved generally sparse. U.K. regulators' own assessments on fracking regulation are also evaluated. The existing evidence points to the necessity of a precautionary approach to protect public health from unconventional gas extraction development.

Health Impact Assessments, Regulation, and the Unconventional Gas Industry in the UK: Exploiting Resources, Ideology, and Expertise?

Health impact assessments (HIAs) across the globe may be used by governments and industries to secure approval for unconventional gas extraction developments. HIA is an umbrella term that covers an array of health review and assessment practices, ranging from the very general to quite specific and technical health studies. Our concern in this paper is principally with the specialist end of the HIA continuum and particularly its application to unconventional gas extraction in the UK. We outline the context within which HIAs in unconventional gas extraction may be conducted. We then explain what HIAs may do. HIAs are often commissioned from consultancy companies to assess unconventional gas extraction project risks and benefits and propose mitigation measures. Communities can rarely afford HIAs in the planning process and may consider them biased when commissioned by vested interests. The oil and gas industry uses these techniques for its own ends. Hiring experts, be they specialist consultants, researchers, lobbyists, ex-government officials, or regulators, to influence planning and regulation is a well-tried tactic and structural advantage exploited by industry in seeking license to operate. Equitable and ethical HIA principles are urgently needed in the UK in relation to unconventional gas to secure the integrity and probity of the emerging regulatory system and address concerns regarding unregulated practitioners.

Multiple Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Attempts in a Community Hospital: Evaluation of the Futility Assessment.

BACKGROUND: In hospital settings, inadequate recognition of futility of aggressive medical management in patients with terminal disease and lack of the timely transition to palliative care may lead to both excessive and potentially harmful treatment and unnecessary burden on hospital resources. In order to better understand the outcomes of futile medical management and recognize the need for more appropriate end-of-life care, we evaluated the survival of particularly vulnerable cohort of patients in a community hospital who had survived at least 1 cardiorespiratory arrest (CRA) but whose medical problems led to subsequent arrests. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we have reviewed the annual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) data in a community hospital in urban settings. RESULTS: Analyzing the population of all patients who had CRA, 22.4% had more than 1 CRA episode and had multiple CPRs (42% of all inpatient CPR were performed on this group of patients). Overall survival at the discharge of patients who had single CRA is significantly better than survival at the discharge of patients who had more than 1 CRA episode (31% vs 4.5%). Only 18.5% of the patients who initially survived CPR after CRA were transitioned to "do not resuscitate" status subsequently, while vast majority had continued aggressive resuscitative efforts. CONCLUSION: Adjusting medical care based on futility assessment in patients with chronic illness who survive CRA is often neglected, but crucially relevant step in the optimization of health care system management.