Why did Swiss citizens refuse a comprehensive second-hand smoke ban?

The ill effects of second-hand smoke are now well documented. To protect the population from exposure to tobacco smoke, comprehensive smoking bans are necessary as expressed in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and its guidelines. Switzerland has only a partial smoking ban full of exceptions which has been in effect since 2010, which reproduces the so-called Spanish model. In September 2012, the Swiss citizens refused a proposal for a more comprehensive ban. This case study examines the reasons behind this rejection and draws some lessons that can be learnt from it.

Engorgement des centres d'urgences: une raison légitime de refuser l'accès aux patients non urgents [Emergency department overcrowding: a legitimate reason to refuse access to urgent care for non-urgent patients?].

Non-urgent cases represent 30-40% of all ED consults; they contribute to overcrowding of emergency departments (ED), which could be reduced if they were denied emergency care. However, no triage instrument has demonstrated a high enough degree of accuracy to safely rule out serious medical conditions: patients suffering from life-threatening emergencies have been inappropriately denied care. Insurance companies have instituted financial penalties to discourage the use of ED as a source of non-urgent care, but this practice mainly restricts access for the underprivileged. More recent data suggest that in fact most patients consult for appropriate urgent reasons, or have no alternate access to urgent care. The safe reduction of overcrowding requires a reform of the healthcare system based on patients' needs rather than access barriers.

Statistical hypothesis testing and common misinterpretations: should we abandon p-value in forensic science applications?

Many people regard the concept of hypothesis testing as fundamental to inferential statistics. Various schools of thought, in particular frequentist and Bayesian, have promoted radically different solutions for taking a decision about the plausibility of competing hypotheses. Comprehensive philosophical comparisons about their advantages and drawbacks are widely available and continue to span over large debates in the literature. More recently, controversial discussion was initiated by an editorial decision of a scientific journal [1] to refuse any paper submitted for publication containing null hypothesis testing procedures. Since the large majority of papers published in forensic journals propose the evaluation of statistical evidence based on the so called p-values, it is of interest to expose the discussion of this journal's decision within the forensic science community. This paper aims to provide forensic science researchers with a primer on the main concepts and their implications for making informed methodological choices.