This paper examines the conflict between the medical monitoring of workers and human rights. A lead regulation in force in Ontario, despite its absolute conflict with an important guideline established by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, is presented as an example of the erosion of human rights by certain legislated activities in occupational medicine. The question of whether the benefits of occupational medical activities outweigh the disadvantages attendant upon the erosion of human rights is raised. It is concluded that these are political and ethical issues, not merely technical ones, and should be debated publicly.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Re: Thompson and Town of Oakville. Ontario Supreme Court case 1 O.R. 122, 1964.
2.
DietrichP.WatsonW.Lead—Ontario's first designated substance. Occupational Health in Ontario (Ontario Ministry of Labor)3(1): 2–19, 1982.
3.
Re: General Motors of Canada and United Automobile Workers, Local 222. 24 L.A.C. (2d), 1979.
4.
American Cyanamid Company. 9 B.N.A. O.S.H.C., 1981.
5.
Canadian Human Rights Commission. Recruitment and Interview Guide. Ottawa, 1981.
6.
Phalen v. Solicitor General of Canada. 2 C.H.R.R., 1981.
7.
Ottawa Citizen, January 8, 1982.
8.
The Globe and Mail, February 3, 1982.
9.
London Free Press, January 20, 1982.
10.
Legislature of Ontario Debates: Official Report (Hansard). October 30, 1980.
11.
MorganR. W.Prospects for Preventive Medicine. Ontario Economic Council, Toronto, 1977.
12.
HarsanyiZ.HuttonR.Genetic Prophecy: Beyond the Double Helix. Rawson, Wade Publishers, New York, 1981.
