@article{ref1,
title="Letter: On injury control",
journal="American journal of public health",
year="1974",
author="Licht, K. F.",
volume="64",
number="11",
pages="1032-1032",
abstract="The wisest gurus called scientists who renamed accident prevention "injury control" (according to Dr. Waller's editorial fable in the April 1974 issue) had better hie themselves back to their caves for another round of meditation. If, as the guru's have pontificated, "the problem you wish to reduce is injury and its effects" then injury becomes the concern of the health community regardless of the cause of that injury. Logically, then, the health community needs to be just as involved in the prevention and mitigation of injury resulting from criminal acts as from non-deliberate acts (i.e. accidents).  And if the interest of the health community is limited to injury control (not damage and loss of property) then what suggestions do the gurus have for predetermining the accidents toward which the health leadership should concentrate it's preventive efforts? Injury and the extent of injury resulting from accidents is largely a matter of chance and it is difficult if not impossible to determine prior to the "undesirable energy transfer"–the accident.  They prevention and mitigation of accidental injury, and the rehabilitation of persons suffering accidental injury, is a clear and sexy goal for the health community. Is that what the guru's meant by "injury control"?  I agree that accident prevention needs to be sent to the showers, but I think Injury Control needs a lot more warm-up time before he's brought into the game.  (term-accident-vs-injury)",
language="en",
issn="0090-0036",
doi="10.2105/AJPH.64.11.1032-a",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.64.11.1032-a"
}