When Occupational Cancer Recognition Falters
Main Article Content
Keywords
-
Abstract
There are differences between epidemiology and legal medicine in addressing the problem of under-reporting occupational cancers. Epidemiology focuses on systematically gathering data and identifying patterns of under-reporting, which is not deemed to pose ethical dilemmas, as its goal is to improve public health outcomes. Conversely, legal medicine investigates individual cases and ensures compliance with legal standards, presenting more complex ethical challenges. Considering workers' frustrations when dealing with unrecognized occupational diseases is essential. These workers experience significant physical and emotional distress and should not have to face a complicated compensation claims process. There is a need for ethical approaches that support workers in navigating their rightful claims for compensation, not challenging their mental and emotional well-being.
References
2. Perol O, Remion R, Charbotel B, Fervers B. Assessment of a systematic screening of occupational exposures in ma-lignant hemopathies in the Rhone-Alpes area: Prolymphome study. Med Lav. 2025, 116(2): 16270
3. Perol O, Remion R3, Charbotel B, et al. A multicenter study to assess a systematic screening of occupational expo-sures in lung cancer patients. Int J Environ Public Health. 2023, 20(6):5068.
4. Porru S, Carta A, Toninelli E, Bozzola G, Arici C. Reducing the underreporting of lung cancer attributable to oc-cupation: outcome from a hospital-based systematic search in Northern Italy. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2016,29:981-989.
5. Bai E, Aiani MR, Crosignani P. LE STRADE/OCCAM: uno strumento per chi opera nei servizi di prevenzione e sicurezza degli ambienti di lavoro (SPSAL) [OCCAM: a tool for the workpractice of the units of occupational health, safety and prevention].Epidemiol Prev. 2011;35(1):55-56.
6. Scarselli A, Scano P, Marinaccio A, Iavicoli S. Occupational cancer in Italy: evaluating the extent of compensated cases in the period 1994-2006. Am J Ind Med. 2005, 52:859-867.
7. Scarselli A, Cabella R, Di Marzio D, Castaldi T, Lanzalaco C. The occupational exposure to carcinogens in Ita-ly:1994-2021, INAIL, Collana Ricerche, 2023.
8. Moccaldi R. Indirizzi AIRM per l’utilizzo della probabilità di causa. G It Med Lav Erg. 2017, 39(2):139-144.
9. Greenland S, Robins JM. Epidemiology, justice and the probability of causation” Jurimetrics. 2000,40(3):321-340.
10. Green M. Freedman D, and Gordis L. Reference Guide on Epidemiology. National Research Council. 2011. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/13163.
11. Samet JM, Chiu WA, Cogliano V, et al. The IARC Monographs: Updated Procedures for Modern and Transparent Evidence Synthesis in Cancer Hazard Identification. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020;112(1):30-37. Doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz169
Article Sidebar
Article Details
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All Journal's articles are Open Access papers distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reproductions with commercial intent will require written permission and payment of royalties.
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
