Hanley James G
University of Winnipeg, MB.
Bull Hist Med. 2006 Winter;80(4):702-32. doi: 10.1353/bhm.2006.0127.
In Britain in 1830, nuisances legally comprised a heterogeneous collection of irritants, united by their ability to cause hurt, inconvenience, or damage. The only legal remedies for nuisances that applied to the entire country were provided through the common law. Though respected, common-law procedure was time consuming, costly, uncertain, and intended to protect the enjoyment of property, not of health. Dangers to health could be removed if they were a nuisance, yet health hazards were not conceptualized separately from nuisances in general, nor were they dealt with differently in practice. This paper demonstrates that during the 1831-32 cholera epidemic, and again in 1846, the executive and the legislature created a strictly medicalized health hazard as part of the transformation in nuisance law and practice. The paper argues, however, that the creation of a medicalized health hazard was a defensive reaction on the part of central authorities. Indeed, after 1846 Parliament retreated from a strictly medicalized health hazard in the face of local resistance and skepticism, and by 1855 physicians played only a marginal and supporting role in nuisance practice. The development of nuisance law thus illustrates the local inspiration for sanitary reform and the often highly contested nature of central interventions.
1830年在英国,公害在法律上包含了一系列异类刺激因素,它们因能够造成伤害、不便或损害而被归为一类。适用于全国的唯一针对公害的法律补救措施是通过普通法提供的。尽管普通法受到尊重,但其程序耗时、成本高、结果不确定,且旨在保护财产享用权,而非健康。如果对健康的危害构成公害,那么可以消除这些危害,但健康危害并未与一般公害区分开来,在实践中也没有得到不同的处理。本文表明,在1831 - 1832年霍乱疫情期间以及1846年,行政部门和立法机构将一种严格医学化的健康危害作为公害法及实践变革的一部分创造出来。然而,本文认为,创造医学化的健康危害是中央当局的一种防御性反应。事实上,1846年之后,面对地方的抵制和怀疑,议会放弃了严格医学化的健康危害,到1855年,医生在公害实践中仅发挥了边缘性的辅助作用。公害法的发展因此说明了地方对卫生改革的推动作用以及中央干预常常具有高度争议性的本质。