PART A
1. Causes of Murray’s illnesses:
Exposure
The exposure of Murray with the use of an epoxy resin and solvents is the primary causes of his illness. He also believes that the health and safety equipment was inadequate. The small Expel-fan used in the glue room was not adequate for the job and could possibly spark, igniting any vapour that was present. Murray only uses kitchen gloves in mixing the glue, and the breathing mask available but frequently used in other parts of the workplace.
Production
Murray’s workplace offers a variety of services, which included life raft survey and repair. During the time of the accident, the management expressed a number of concerns. Primarily, the manager could not understand how Murray got sick, as he is the first one to get infected. Another concern is that the company would not be able to get on with its services without the use of the chemical. Third, the employer had concerns with the diagnosis of solvent neurotoxicity, being not seemingly clear-cut and lacking resolution from the diagnosis. Thus, the lack of clarity made the manager think of other possible causes of Murray’s illness, such as drug use.
Decisions
The decision of Murray and the company is to remove him from the workplace to avoid the severity of his illness, and due also to some factors including his ongoing anger, irritability, and depression, pins and needles in his fingertips to rashes on his face, bad circulation, smelling like a glue residue in the morning, problems with breathing, changes in personality and memory, and changes in his concentration and motivation.
External Parties
One of the external parties involved in Murray’s case is his manager or employer. This is because instead of knowing the causes of the illness of Murray and being concerned of the welfare and safety of their employees in the company, they even speculated that Murray is into drugs. Another external party to consider is the doctor who Murray visited. This is because he should have pursued and encouraged Murray to undergo medical examinations and treatment. The OSH medical practitioner is also considered an external party because he/she should have made additional tests on the facility in order to have made more accurate conclusions regarding the case. The OSH medical practitioner should also have insisted on encouraging the company to allow further examination of the chemicals, being suspected to have caused Murray’s illness. Murray’s wife and family serves to be an important external party, for they should have not left Murray in the time he needs them the most and should have provided him the care, support, protection, and affection that he needs during his illness. During the progression of his illness, they should have been the primary individuals who understood him and supported him all the way. Lastly, Murray’s friends are also external parties who contributed to his illness, for similar to what his family did; they left him in the time that Murray badly needs support, care, understanding, and love.
Consequences for Murray
The illness affected Murray physically, emotionally, socially, and psychologically. Physical damages include pins and needles in his fingertips to rashes on his face, bad circulation, smelling a glue residue in the morning, and problems with breathing. Psychological damages include changes in his personality and memory, frequent and abrupt mood swings, loss of short-term memory, and changes in concentration and motivation. Social and emotional damages include changes in motivation and concentration, dropping of grades, isolation, and breaking down of personal relationships with family and friends.
Consequences for Murray’s family
The illness made his family suffer, as his change in personality affected how he spends time with his family. He can no longer cope with his children, his marriage began to come under strain, and he separated with his wife. He even moved out of his family home, thus, becoming more antisocial, giving up hobbies and sports. The family not supported Murray in his illness, as his wife was not even interested with his illness. The marriage broke down due to Murray’s change in personality and due to the fact that Jane has doubts with their future and to find a lasting employment.
Consequences for the Company
Murray’s manager that the incident had no adverse effect with the costs of the company. The morale of the workers was not affected. Overall loses of the company due to incident was also minimal, with even a slight increase in the ACC levy. There was no increased cost in the change of chemicals to be used in the repair.
Actors
Murray – The main actor in the case, who is significantly and totally affected by the unsafe workplace of his employer
Jane – Murray’s wife; Instead of supporting, understanding, and assisting his husband, she and their kids left him due to his change in personality
OSH medical practitioner – The individual who found out that the illness of Murray is caused by neurotoxicity. He should have insisted on the check up and follow up of Murray, thus, the severity of the illness should have been avoided
Manager/Employer – He should have insisted on deeper investigation on the case and have implemented policies and changes regarding the use of toxic substances in the workplace
Template 1
2. Different solutions mentioned in the case
Exposures
The main solution for the exposure of Murray is to remove him from the workplace. The management also insisted that if there was a problem, it had to be dealt with.
Production
The solvent used for the repair of the rafts were changed into a new thinner, which is less reactive. In addition to this, a solution was to include monitoring for vapour levels and that procedures must be put in place to minimise any vapour that was there.
Decisions
It was decided that Murray has to be removed from the workplace. Due to the different adverse effects of his illness, he also decided to isolate himself, becoming anti-social, and leaving his family, friends, and hobbies.
Consequences for Murray
The solutions made Murray angry to himself and to his employment, for making him suffer the illness he is suffering at the moment. He is also suffered with the decisions he made and the people around him made, thus, leaving him alone, lonely, and isolated.
Consequences for Murray’s family
Murray’s family left him, thus, having no contact with him after the incident. Murray and his wife separated twice, and there were no reports that they got back together again. Such a decision was made by the family because they cannot put up with the change in personality of Murray.
Consequences for the Company
The change in the solvent used by the company did not create any effect on the sales and operations of the company. Small changes and losses were indicated but no significant changes or effects were reported.
Template 2
3. Discipline of External Actors
Manager/Employer – The discipline that the manager/employer of Murray belongs to must be suspension. This is because instead of knowing the causes of the illness of Murray and being concerned of the welfare and safety of their employees in the company, they even speculated that Murray is into drugs.
Doctor – The discipline he belongs to must be verbal reprimand because he should have pursued and encouraged Murray to undergo medical examinations and treatment.
OSH medical practitioner – His discipline must be verbal reprimand because he/she should have made additional tests on the facility in order to have made more accurate conclusions regarding the case.
Jane – As Murray’s wife, she must have verbal reprimand, for she should have not left Murray in the time he needs her most and should have provided him the care, support, protection, and affection that he needs during his illness.
Murray’s friends – They must receive both verbal and written reprimand because for similar to what his family did; they left him in the time that Murray badly needs support, care, understanding, and love.
4. Factors the External Actors Focused On
Manager/Employer – The internal categories focused upon by Murray’s manager/employer include Decision, Production, and Consequences. Decision is being given importance by the company in order to identify the root causes of the problem and to provide solutions. Production is also given importance by the company, as it is entirely affected once health problems of its employees become affected by the use of solvents in the company. Consequences are also given important regard, as Murray’s case might produce negative effects on the reputation, products, and sales of the company.
Doctor – The internal categories that the doctor gives importance to include Decision, Exposures, and Consequences. The doctor is concerned about decisions because these are the basis of Murray’s solutions to his illness. The doctor is also concerned with exposures because these serve to be the main causes of his illness. Lastly, the doctor is also concerned with the consequences, being part of the possible complications that he might suffer from due to his illness.
OSH medical practitioner – The internal categories that the OSH medical practitioner is concerned with include Exposure and Consequences. Murray’s exposure to the harmful chemicals is given importance because the OSH medical practitioner knows its fatal effects to humans. With his exposure, the consequences are also given importance, as the OSH medical practitioner knows the severity of the effects of Murray and to the other employees in the company.
Jane – As Murray’s wife, Jane is concerned with Decision and Consequences. She is concerned with the decisions to be made, which is the basis for the survival of her husband and the welfare of their family. The consequences of Murray’s illness are given importance by Jane because such consequences indicate the survival of her husband and their family.
Murray’s friends – The main concern of Murray’s friends is the consequences of his illness. This is because they are either responsible for his speedy recovery and support or his desolation and loneliness, which is Murray’s case.
5. Consultancy Approach of External Actors
Manager/Employer – The consultancy approach used by Murray’s manager/employer was technical prevention. This is because the company provided solution to the problem by changing their solvent into a less reactive thinner. The OSH perspective used was consequence, as the employer must protect the welfare of the company and its interests.
Doctor – The consultancy approach used by the doctor was the health perspective, particularly Treatment. This is because the doctor must be concerned with the diagnosis and treatment that Murray must undergo in order to determine his illness and its causes. The OSH perspective used was causative or action, being knowledgeable of the possible solutions for his illness.
OSH medical practitioner – The consultancy approach used by OSH medical practitioner was the change agent, as being able to provide solutions and suggestions to prevent the progression of Murray’s illness. He also used the OSH perspective, particularly the Causative or Action, as he is concerned with the effects of Murray’s exposure to the chemicals and the actions that must be done in order to prevent adverse consequences.
Jane – The consultancy approach used by Jane is the health perspective, specifically change agent. This is because she brought significant changes in Murray’s life, which happened when she separated with him, thus, making his condition worse. She also used the Consequence as an OSH perspective, being much concerned with the effects of the illness to Murray and to her family.
Murray’s friends – The consultancy approach used by Murray’s friends was the health perspective, specifically the change agent. This is because similar to what his wife did, his friends also left him, instead of helping him to cope with his illness. For the OSH perspective, they used the consequence, being focused on the effects of the illness on Murray and to their relationship with one another.
6. a) If the consultant has a sociological background, he/she would be primarily taking note of the reactions and the role of Murray’s wife and friends. This is because the interaction of Murray with the different individuals in the family and community, particularly to those he is related with produce significant changes and effects in how he deals with his illness. Another factor to take note of is how his employer managed his case. This is because this can be Murray’s basis of how he would be able to cope effectively in his workplace given his medical condition.
b) The consultancy approach applicable with the sociological discipline is the Change Agent, as with its use, different individuals in the society would be able to participate and partake in assisting Murray in combating his illness and all its associated factors. On the other hand, the OSH perspective related to the sociological discipline is the Causative or Action, as the provision of actions or solutions for the illness of Murray involves the decisions, opinions, and perceptions of other individuals in the family and the community.
c) The focus of the advice of a sociologist would be related to establishing good communication and enriching relationships with the family members and friends of Murray. This is because this would help him cope with his illness and all its associated complications or problems.
PART B
1. What contribution did Bernardo Ramazzini make to occupational health?
Bernardo Ramazzini (1633-1714) was bestowed with the title of the “Father of Occupational Medicine” due to his two major contributions. One of his major contributions was his systematic examination of a number of trades and occupations. He observed conditions of work and their occupational diseases. Thus, by doing so, he made a number of recommendations on welfare, hygiene, posture, ventilation, and protective clothing, which are still valid today, as they were in 1700. His second major contribution was his advice to physicians that when taking a client’s history, they should enquire as to the nature of their work as a means of assisting in the diagnosis of the client’s condition (Safetyline Institute 2006).
2. In what way did 19th century legislation from the UK influence the development of occupational health and safety in New Zealand?
New Zealand has followed the British tradition with minimum health and safety standards prescribed by quasi-criminal law and enforced by a Government inspectorate. Its view was that health and safety should be managed by the employers, to the exclusion of employees or their representatives, if the employer thought fit. Meaning, the Health & Safety in Employment Act 1992 has provided a general duty legislative framework, supplemented by a limited number of codes of practice and guidelines, and enforced by a seriously under-resourced inspectorate. In addition, it can also be noted that worker rights or participation systems have been absent, such as the elected health and safety representatives, which have been a feature of the UK model (Huggard 2002).
3. What was the earliest legislation with a health and safety focus to be introduced into New Zealand? What did it regulate?
The earliest legislation was the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, which aims to promote the prevention of harm to all people at work. It applies to all New Zealand workplaces and places duties on employers, the self-employed, employees, principals, and others who are in a position to manage or control hazards (‘Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992’ 2008).
4. What impact did the Bruner Mine disaster of 1896 have on legislation in New Zealand?
The mining disaster prompted the authorities to come up with new policies and legislations that would protect the workers and the quarries from which they work upon. A number of projects have been done, such as the National Dust Project in 1995 and the Respiratory System Survey in 1999 (Glass et al 2003). Along with such projects are other safety legislations that aim to address the different issues that mining and quarry workers are able to face, such as diseases and safety measures in their workplaces.
5. How can OSH contribute to a company’s performance and competitiveness?
One of the factors that motivate employees to work in any company or workplace is safety and health. Through the OSH, it can be understood that the better safety measures that a company is able to provide their employees, then the more their employees would be compelled to work for them, thus, leading to increased productive, improved performance, and better competitiveness. However, if safety measures and health initiatives would be neglected by a company, then their employees would always feel threatened to work properly, as they are always thinking about how unsafe their working condition in the company is.
6. What is meant by passive strategies (as opposed to active) for injury control? Give two examples for each.
Passive strategies – These are strategies that have universal application, thus, protecting all members of the community. They do not decay in efficacy, avoids individual’s risk values, and do not have to be perfect fit for all individuals. Examples would include increasing resistance to injury, such as by education or reminder that the use of hard hats prevents miners from being hit by falling debris, and preventing inappropriate release of hazard, such as by preventing release of lead to avoid water contamination (Department of Emergency Medicine 2008).
Active strategies – Strategies that require continual upkeep, are not uniformly accepted, and are less expensive to implement. Examples would include providing best practice standards of emergency, hospital and rehabilitation care, and countering damage already done, such as by transporting head injured and spinal cord injured appropriately (Department of Emergency Medicine 2008).
7. Differentiate between ‘work-related disease’ and ‘occupational disease’
‘Work-related disease’ is defined as a disease or illness arising as a result of work-related factors, such as specific diseases and stress (‘Reporting Work-Related Diseases’ 2006), while ‘occupational disease’ is a health problem caused by exposure to a workplace hazard, such as dust, gases, fumes, noise, toxic substances, vibration, radiation, infectious agents, and extreme temperatures and air pressures (‘Workers’ 2008).
8. Differentiate between descriptive and analytical epidemiology
Descriptive epidemiology deals with the frequency and the distribution of risk factors in populations and enables to assess the extent of a disease, providing hypotheses of etiologic research, while analytical epidemiology aims to research and study risk and protector factors of diseases (‘Epidemiology’ 2006).
9. Describe three types of bias which can affect injury rates which are calculated using routinely collected data.
Gender bias – The prejudice in action or treatment against a person on the basis of their sex (‘Legal Definitions’ 2007)
Information bias – This is the inaccuracy in measurement of classification (Schoenbach 2001).
Outcome bias – The bias in which people take outcomes into account in a way that is irrelevant to the true quality of the decision (Baron and Hershey 1988).
10. What are the main sources of statistical information on occupational disease in New Zealand?
The different sources of statistical information on occupational diseases in New Zealand can be obtained from the Statistical Databases of the New Zealand Statistics Sources, located in The University of Auckland Library, which can be accessed online in http://nzstats.auckland.ac.nz/. The statistical databases are sorted by subject, thus, easy and simple access can be done. Another website that can be accessed is Statistics New Zealand, which provides up-to-date news and statistics regarding the health and diseases of the citizens in New Zealand. It can be accessed in this website http://www.stats.govt.nz/store/2006/05/fatal-injury-statistics-oct05-hotp.htm?page=para007Master. Lastly, statistical information can also be retrieved from the National Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee or NOHSAC, which has the following website http://www.nohsac.govt.nz/.
11. Distinguish between the following types of epidemiological studies
a) Case-control study – In a case-control study, clients who have developed a disease are identified and their past exposure to suspected etiological factors is compared with that of controls or referents that do not have the disease. Statistical adjustment may be rendered more efficient by matching cases and controls for exposure to confounders, either on an individual basis or in groups (‘Case-control and cross sectional studies’ 2008).
Cross sectional study – This measures the prevalence of health outcomes or determinants of health, or both, in a population at a point in time or over a short period. Such information can be used to explore aetiology. However, associations must be interpreted with caution, as biases may arise due to selection into or out of the study population (‘Case-control and cross sectional studies’ 2008).
Cohort study – A study in which subjects who presently have a certain condition and/or receive a particular treatment are followed over time and compared with another group who are not affected by the condition under investigation. The study of a cohort involves any group of individuals who are linked in some way or who have experienced the same significant life event within a given period (‘Cohort Studies’ 2008).
12. What key components of the original 1992 Health and Safety in Employment Act was missing from the Robens style OHS legislative framework adopted by the UK and other European countries?
The Health & Safety in Employment Act 1992 has provided a general duty legislative framework, supplemented by a limited number of codes of practice and guidelines, and enforced by a seriously under-resourced inspectorate. In addition, it can also be noted that worker rights or participation systems have been absent, such as the elected health and safety representatives, which have been a feature of the UK model since the Robens Report in the 1970s which, in turn was heavily influenced by the Scandinavian models. In effect, the legislation was like a two legged stool, where employers had a clear general duty, and the inspectorate had a clear enforcement role, but employees and their unions were denied any statutory role (Huggard 2002).
13. What is meant by the hierarchy of control? How would you apply this to loud noise source and working back to back shifts?
‘Hierarchy of control’ is a useful tool, as it tells which of the types of control measure provides a better level of risk control, including elimination, substitution, isolation, administrative, and personal protective equipment. The higher in the hierarchy of control, the better and more reliable the control is (‘Workplace Health and Safety’ 2006). This can be highly application in controlling loud noise source through elimination, which is the elimination of a hazard associated with risks. By the process of elimination, which is the highest possible control to be used, it can be perceived that the best possible results can be achieved. In relation to working back to back shifts, isolation can be done, which uses structural change to the work environment or work process in order to interrupt the path between the worker and the risk (‘Workplace Health and Safety’ 2006). In the process, the work processes of workers are changed, thus, introducing variety that can boost motivation and learning.
14. What is meant by serious harm? Where it is defined?
As defined by the Schedule 1 of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, serious harm means death, or harm of a kind or description declared by the Governor-General by Order in Council to be serious for the purposes of the Act. It amounts or results in permanent loss of bodily function or temporary severe loss of bodily function, amputation of body part, burns, loss of consciousness, or causing hospitalization (‘Serious Harm Definition’ 2008).
15. It is generally accepted that, in relation to OSH, workers have certain rights. What are they? In what ways does the HSE Act acknowledge these rights?
Rights of workers include making appropriate use of protective clothing and equipment, work safely, comply with safety procedures and requirements, report accidents and hazards, and cooperate with health monitoring. They also have special rights, such as refusing to carry out tasks that would cause serious harm, and the right to participate in health and safety decision-making. In turn, HSE Act lays down a number of responsibilities for employers to follow, such as providing safe working environments, maintaining health and safety facilities, having a plan in case of emergencies, providing staff information, and providing training and supervision (Seaman 2004).
16. What are the Woodhouse principles and why are they significant?
The Woodhouse principles include (1) community responsibility, which involves protecting all citizens; (2) comprehensive entitlement, which entitles all injured persons to receive compensation; (3) complete rehabilitation, wherein the scheme must be deliberately organised to urge forward the physical and vocational recovery; (4) real compensation, recommending that weekly compensation be paid at 80% of previous earnings due to incapacitation; and (5) administrative efficiency, where achievement of the system will be eroded to the extent that its benefits are delayed (‘ACC Basic Overview’ 2001). Such principles are significant for they help provide support for employees who have been injured due to their work.
17. How has the definition of ‘personal injury by accident’ changed in recent accident compensation legislation?
Changes of personal injury by accident were done due to the country’s inadequacy in terms of its compensation scheme. Before, providing compensation for accident victims must first undergo the common law action for damages, worker’s compensation schemes, social welfare, and other provisions, such as considering criminal injury (‘ACC Basic Overview’ 2001). At present, the reform was made to replace the common law as a means of compensating for personal injury and put a 24-hour-no-fault scheme in its place, thus, remaining to be the single most important feature of the scheme. In addition, it remains throughout the country’s history, despite the chequered nature of the legislative changes within New Zealand, the most comprehensive form of the tort system in the common law world. It also serves to be an answer to the failure of the common law to compensate large numbers of accident victims and the long delays in delivering benefits to those who need them (Palmer 2003).
18. Distinguish between terms
Occupational medicine – This is the branch of clinical medicine most active in the field of occupational health, with the principal role of the provision of health advice to organisations and individuals. It ensures that the highest standards of Health and Safety at work can be achieved and maintained (‘What is Occupational Medicine?’ 2004).
Occupational Hygiene – This can be defined as the practice of identifying chemical, physical, and biological hazardous agents in the workplace, which could cause diseases or discomfort. It also involves evaluating the extent of the risk due to exposure to such hazardous agents, and the control of those risks to prevent ill-health in the long or short term (Bloor 2008).
Occupational Safety – This is the practice of regulating the condition of employees in the workplace by ensuring their health, comfort, and preventing exposure to hazards that might cause serious harm
Occupational Ergonomics – This is the application of human-system interface technology in the workplace to the analysis, design, and evaluation of systems to enhance safety, health, comfort, effectiveness, and quality of life (Karwowski and Marras 1999).
The concept of Occupational Medicine encompasses the concepts of Occupational Hygiene and Occupational Safety, as they involve practices that are employed in the study of Occupational Medicine. Occupational Ergonomics pertains to the practical application of all the other three concepts in the workplace.
References
‘ACC Basic Overview’ 2001, The Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation and Compensation ACT 2001, pp. 1-6.
Baron, J and Hershey, JC 1988, ‘Outcome Bias in Decision Evaluation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 54, pp. 569-579.
Bloor, DM 2008, Occupational Hygiene, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.dmboh.com/occhyg.htm>.
‘Case-control and cross sectional studies’ 2008, BMJ, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.bmj.com/epidem/epid.8.html>.
‘Cohort Studies’ 2008, Social Research Methods, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/tutorial/Cho2/cohort.html>.
Department of Emergency Medicine 2008, Injury Control: Injury Prevention Center, viewed 16 May 2008, <bms.brown.edu/pediatrics/injed/documents/Injury%20%20lecture-complete.ppt>.
‘Epidemiology’ 2006, Bio Stat Em, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.biostatem.com/english/epidemiology/epidemiology.htm>.
Glass, WI, McLean, D, Armstrong, R, Pearce, N, Thomas, L, Munro, G, Walrond, J, McMillan, A, O’Keefe, R, Power, R, Rayner, C, Stevens, M and Taylor, R 2003, ‘Respiratory Health and Silica Dust Levels in the Extractive Industry’, Occupational Health Report Series, no. 9, pp. 1-25.
‘Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992’ 2008, Department of Labour, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.osh.dol.govt.nz/law/hse.shtml>.
Huggard, S 2002, New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://union.org.nz/policy/safety-a-union-perspective-ross-wilson-to-danish-unions>.
Karwowski, W and Marras, WS 1999, Occupational Ergonomics: Principles of Work, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
‘Legal Definitions’ 2007, Legal-Explanations.com, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/gender-bias.htm>.
Palmer, G 2003, The Nineteen-Seventies” Summary for Presentation to the Accident Compensation Symposium, Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.austlii.edu.au/nz/journals/VUWLRev/2003/13.html>.
‘Reporting Work-Related Diseases’ 2006, Danish Energy Authority, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.energistyrelsen.dk/sw20068.asp>.
Safetyline Institute 2006, ‘Occupational Health & Safety Practitioner: Introduction to Hazardous Substances Management’, WorkSafe, Department of Consumer and Employment Protection, pp. 1-32.
Schoenbach, VJ 2001, Sources of Error: Selection Bias, Principles of Epidemiology for Public Health, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.epidemiolog.net/epid160/lectures/09-SelectionBias.ppt?user=epid160>.
Seaman, P 2004, ‘The Fundamentals of Health and Safety: Laying down the law’, Safeguard, March/April, pp. 45-46.
‘Serious Harm Definition’ 2008, Department of Labour, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.osh.dol.govt.nz/law/hse-harm.shtml>.
‘What is Occupational Medicine?’ 2004, Faculty of Occupational Medicine, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.facoccmed.ac.uk/about/whatsom.jsp>.
‘Workers’ 2008, Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.wsib.on.ca/wsib/wsibsite.nsf/public/WhatIsOccupationalDisease>.
‘Workplace Health and Safety’ 2006, The State of Queensland Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.deir.qld.gov.au/workplace/law/codes/sugar/manage/control/index.htm>.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment