Love Lives of the Famous

References

Cite

Share

Abstract

In the first, Joan Ward, an ergonomist at Loughborough University, contends that sex discrimination is essential in industry (given that discrimination means observing fine differences) and then gives a series of ergonomic reasons for constructing machinery appropriate to each sex's capacities and placing persons accordingly. Dr Ferguson, of lCI, tries to assess whether there are toxicological problems peculiar to women and considers that, although in general there are none, because of possible fetal exposure it may be necessary to introduce a two-tier system of standards. Dr Muriel Newhouse, however, advances evidence that women's susceptibility to asbestos-related problems may be greater than that of men. Ms Betty Lockwood, Chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, discusses the implications of the Act, and Barbara Calvert, Q.c., considers legal aspects of the Act with regard to the unborn child. She concludes that an employer may not dismiss a pregnant woman but none the less may be liable for virtually any fetal abnormality! It is refreshing to read papers so objective but as forthright as these on this subject. The discussions on each paper are also included as a worthwhile bonus. The symposium on Health Screening will be of more interest to those in occupational health practice. There are ten papers covering screening for specific occupational diseases as well as for personal health. Dr D'Souza, of St Thomas's Hospital, sets the stage with a good review of the principles of screening which contrasts with Dr Coppin's rather disappointing paper on pre-employment screening; he ignores the trend away from routine entry medical examinations for non-hazardous work because evidence is lacking that they successfully screen applicants in terms of work performance or absenteeism. Dr Pickering discusses the identification of atopic subjects using a battery of five skin prick tests, which may be useful prior to employment involving contact with respiratory allergens such as platinum salts or Bacillus suhtilis enzymes. Dr Gadian, from the Clayton Aniline Company, describes current methods used to screen workers exposed to aromatic amines for bladder cancer, but unfortunately does not apply Dr D'Souza's criteria to test if six-monthly urine exfoliative cytology screening really is useful. Other papers discuss medical examinations for deep-sea divers and asbestos workers as well as the place of audiometric screening. Professor Rose, of St Mary's Hospital, provides an interim report on the collaborative study in the European Economic Community to detect and modify coronary risk factors at the workplace. Some success has been achieved with smoking and blood cholesterol levels, but less with blood pressure and weight reduction. Dr Bailey analyses some results from the BUPA (British United Provident Association) Medical Centre which suggested that "at-risk" drinkers may be identified by a combination of their drinking history and their gamma glutamyl transferase levels. Dr Davey, also ofBUPA, discusses screening for breast cancer but gives little attention to self-examination or to recent work which casts doubt on the safety of mammography for mass screening. The inclusion of various papers on promoting personal health are of note because they indicate the widening scope of preventive medicine at the workplace.