Rate this!
Andrew Auty
Member - 9 posts
2 points come to mind:
1) If accepted as a general principle, compensation for a biological effect, in the absence of measurable harm, would be a new adventure for the civil law.
Potentially in line for compensation would be: raised levels of cortisol, high heart rates, temporary threshold shift, fatigue, aches and pains, anxiety, wheezing and so on. An adventure of this sort could be quite lucrative for some. Awards would probably be low, but processing costs would have a certain familiarity.
In terms of social policy, the duty holder would be encouraged to aim for a zero effect of the working environment. But perhaps this is already the standard of care that is expected?
2) Plaques are not a reliable indicator of exposure history. Many of those who worked alongside those who now have plaques, will not have plaques. The difference in reaction to exposure is unforeseeable just as is the degree of anxiety to be associated with awareness of the x-ray evidence. Why should someone with plaques be treated more favourably than someone without when to most observers the important effect on each is the same? Why should the employer be liable for one and not the other? Is it self-evident that someone without plaques has not been the victim of negligence?
One obvious answer is that a pro compensation Parliament could decide that pleural plaques are an injury. This would avoid the risk of creating a new general principle for the civil law or, self-evident injustice to the plaque less and their (former???) employers.
Once a genuine cause of action is established, compensation for anxiety and its medical effects can be contemplated.
The other obvious answer is that the House of Lords got it right.
If there are no other obvious answers then the question for Parliament is how to balance the long term good health of the civil law on one hand with the temptation to provide money to a vocal lobby, on the other.
Neutral views on this, seem unlikely.
Rate this!
Nigel DuPree
Member - 145 posts
So is there a cause and effect in terms of plaques equal precurser to potential ill health as in HIV is to Aids or is there no connnection and all just have to worry whether pot-luck is gonna get'em ?
Rate this!
Andrew Auty
Member - 9 posts
Nigel, correct, plaques are not a precursor to disease. The evidence so far is that plaques make no contribution at all to the development of any disease. They are both symptomless and benign. Not that I think anyone should rejoice in the news that they have one ...
A person with a plaque has just the same risk of disease as the person who worked their entire life along side them but just happens not to have a plaque to show for it.
0 (0)
