Decriminalization of Health and Safety at Work in Australia

ABOUT THE BOOK As the title Safety or Profit? suggests, health and safety at work needs to be understood in the context of the wider political economy. This book brings together contributions informed by this view from internationally recognized scholars. It reviews the governance of health and safety at work, with special reference to Australia, Canada, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Three main aspects are discussed. The restructuring of the labor market: this is considered with respect to precarious work and to gender issues and their implications for the health and safety of workers. The neoliberal agenda: this is examined with respect to the diminished power of organized labor, decriminalization, and new governance theory, including an examination of how well the health-and-safety-at-work regimes put in place in many industrial societies about forty years ago have fared and how distinctive the recent emphasis on self-regulation in several countries really is. The role of evidence: there is a dearth of evidence-based policy. The book examines how policy on health and safety at work is formulated at both company and state levels. Cases considered include the scant regard paid to evidence by an official inquiry into future strategy in Canada; the lack of evidence-based policy and the reluctance to observe the precautionary principle with respect to work-related cancer in the United Kingdom; and the failure to learn from past mistakes in the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Intended Audience: Researchers; policymakers, trade union representatives, and officials interested in OHS; postgraduate students of OHS; OHS professionals; regulatory and socio-legal scholars.

A sunburnt country – storms, surges and sea levels : of insurance and flooding rains

Increasing population pressures and life-style choices are resulting in more people living in areas that are at risk of inundation from rising sea levels and flooding. However, following natural disaster events, such as the 2011 Queensland floods, many Australians discovered they were uninsured. Either their insurance policies did not cover flood; or multiple (and confusing) water-related definitions led them to believe they had cover when they did not. Several theories are analysed to try to explain what is a world-wide underinsurance problem but these do not provide an answer to the problem. This research focuses on uncovering the reasons consumers fail to adequately insure for flood and other water-related events. Recent Australian legislative attempts to overcome insureds’ confusion of water related definitions are examined for this purpose. The authors conclude that Australian and other) legislators should set a maximum premium for a minimum amount of flood and sea related cover; and restrict the building and style of homes in flood prone areas.

Access to essential medicines: Public health and international law

Historically, there have been intense conflicts over the ownership and exploitation of pharmaceutical drugs and diagnostic tests dealing with infectious diseases. Throughout the 1980’s, there was much scientific, legal, and ethical debate about which scientific group should be credited with the discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus, and the invention of the blood test devised to detect antibodies to the virus. In May 1983, Luc Montagnier, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, and other French scientists from the Pasteur Institute in Paris, published a paper in Science, detailing the discovery of a virus called lymphadenopathy (LAV). A scientific rival, Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute, identified the AIDS virus and published his findings in the May 1984 issue of Science. In May 1985, the United States Patent and Trademark Office awarded the American patent for the AIDS blood test to Gallo and the Department of Health and Human Services. In December 1985, the Institut Pasteur sued the Department of Health and Human Services, contending that the French were the first to identify the AIDS virus and to invent the antibody test, and that the American test was dependent upon the French research. In March 1987, an agreement was brokered by President Ronald Reagan and French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, which resulted in the Department of Health and Human Services and the Institut Pasteur sharing the patent rights to the blood test for AIDS. In 1992, the Federal Office of Research Integrity found that Gallo had committed scientific misconduct, by falsely reporting facts in his 1984 scientific paper. A subsequent investigation by the National Institutes of Health, the United States Congress, and the US attorney-general cleared Gallo of any wrongdoing. In 1994, the United States government and French government renegotiated their agreement regarding the AIDS blood test patent, in order to make the distribution of royalties more equitable... The dispute between Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo was not an isolated case of scientific rivalry and patent races. It foreshadowed further patent conflicts over research in respect of HIV/AIDS. Michael Kirby, former Justice of the High Court of Australia diagnosed a clash between two distinct schools of philosophy - ‘scientists of the old school... working by serendipity with free sharing of knowledge and research’, and ‘those of the new school who saw the hope of progress as lying in huge investments in scientific experimentation.’ Indeed, the patent race between Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier has been a precursor to broader trade disputes over access to essential medicines in the 1990s and 2000s. The dispute between Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier captures in microcosm a number of themes of this book: the fierce competition for intellectual property rights; the clash between sovereign states over access to medicines; the pressing need to defend human rights, particularly the right to health; and the need for new incentives for research and development to combat infectious diseases as both an international and domestic issue.

Submission to: Strategic Review of Health and Medical Research (Australia) otherwise known as the McKeon Review

Public submission # 247 to the McKeon Review. The submission addresses the terms of reference on: How can we optimise translation of health and medical research into better health and wellbeing? (Terms of Reference 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11)

Social determinants of health and diabetic foot disease

Background Diabetic foot disease (DFD) is the leading cause of hospitalisation and lower extremity amputation (LEA) in people with diabetes. Many studies have established the relationship between DFD and clinical risk factors, such as peripheral neuropathy and peripheral arterial disease. Other studies have identified the relationship between diabetes and non-clinical risk factors termed social determinants of health (SDoH), such as socioeconomic status. However, it appears very few studies have investigated the relationship between DFD and SDoH. This paper aims to review the existing literature investigating the relationship between DFD and the SDoH factors socioeconomic status (SES), race and geographical remoteness (remoteness). Process Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PubMed) were searched for studies reporting SES, race (including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander in Australia) and remoteness and their relationship to DFD and LEA. Exclusion criteria were studies conducted in developing countries and studies published prior to 2000. Findings Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed; 10 in Australia. Overall, 28 (58%) studies investigated LEA, 10 (21%) DFD, and 10 (21%) DFD and LEA as the DFD-related outcome. Thirty-six (75%) studies investigated the SDoH risk factor of race, 22 (46%) SES, and 20 (42%) remoteness. SES, race and remoteness were found to be individually associated with LEA and DFD in the majority of studies. Only four studies investigated interactions between SES, race and remoteness and DFD with contrasting findings. All four studies used only LEA as their investigated outcome. No Australian studies investigate the interaction of all three SDoH risk factors on DFD outcomes. Conclusions The SDoH risk factors of SES, race and GR appear to be individually associated with DFD. However, only few studies investigated the interaction of these three major SDoH risk factors and DFD outcomes with contrasting results. There is a clear gap in this area of DFD research and particularly in Australia. Until urgent future research is performed, current practice and policy does not adequately take into consideration the implication of SDoH on DFD.