摘要:I criticize the concern over the politicization of public health policy as a justification for preferring a narrow to a broad model of public health. My critique proceeds along 2 lines. First, the fact that administrative structures and actors are primary sources of public health policy demonstrates its inescapably political and politicized nature. Second, historical evidence shows that public health in Great Britain and the United States has from its very inception been political and politicized. I conclude by noting legitimate ethical concerns regarding the political nature of public health policy and argue that open deliberation in a democratic social order is best served by acknowledging the constraints of the inescapably politicized process of public health policymaking. There exist compelling ethical justifications for a broad model of public health, one tied to the best evidence regarding the prime determinants of health, illness, and inequities in human societies. 1 Such a model suggests the insufficiency of a narrow model of public health, one that eschews intensive social interventions in favor of a restricted scope that focuses public health resources on what Fairchild et al. 2 have termed the “basic 6”: collecting vital statistics; controlling communicable disease; sanitation; laboratory services; maternal, infant, and child health services; and health education There also exist numerous significant arguments in opposition to a broad model of public health. My goal is to critique 1 common argument issued in favor of a narrow model and to suggest that although there are numerous good reasons for preferring a narrow to a broad model of public health, the particular argument considered here is not one of them. Specifically, the argument of concern suggests that a narrow model of public health is preferable to a broad model because the latter carries significant risks of politicizing public health policy.