Synopsis of Chalmers’
3 part article
Western society, Chalmers explains, recognizes tattooing as barbarous and uncivilized.
Though T&P has a long historical presence around the world, in the West it is forbidden by Levitcal injunction, contrary to
Christian teaching about adornment,
a sign of a pathological character, even a way to
identify those with a criminal disposition. Its prevalence has, in spite of
this, greatly increased, especially with the young, raising the question of our heritage
not being handed
down to the next generation. This is a concern for the older generation
(policy makers) because they must assure the young carry on our Western heritage.
The risk to health from
infection Chalmers argues, remains the most important argument to use to manage and control T&P even though the
USA CDC concludes that there is no association of a
greater risk from infection or other medical sequelae solely from T&P.
The meaning of
broadened to include more than merely risk of
infection. For example, new
regulations are needed to reduce the
likelihood of negative psychological
health effects, (e.g., dissatisfaction and regret), to reduce future negative societal
health impacts (e.g., loss of job opportunities, for example,
because of placement). A
psychological health must also be known, to determine eligibility
requirements, and for practitioners, given their risk-taking life styles, evidenced by having tattoos
and piercings, as risk-takers therefore, they are likely to take risks with clients’ health and safety.
It is crucial Chalmers argues to know who the practitioners are and why they are
tattooing and piercing.
It is necessary therefore that T&P practitioners reduce these health risks through greater knowledge and improved
practice of risk-reduction strategies. When
these new rules are introduced to implement these strategies there may be hostility on the part of those who don’t agree
with the policies and
there may be a
lack of initial participation because of egotism.
However, once in place and enforced these rules and regulations will be accepted over time.
Though described as self-regulating,
Chalmers writes that the T&P industry
has not met the basic tenets of self-regulation. Therefore, to reduce the various risks to health the industry must be managed and controlled by a
single set of state-wide regulations administered and enforced by the State
through effective implementation, education, training, and
Only this type of management and control
will reduce the
incidence and therefore the
prevalence of T&P.
steps will cause a reduction in
the number of negative health outcomes, including the incidence of
This complex set of
rules and regulations will therefore reduce
the popularity of T&P.