Posted By Raymond Rapp Paul, I presume you mean Sutherland v Hatton as reported in SHP May edition. Your view may depend on whether you are an employer, employee or their representative. The ruling is a little diffcult to comprehend, as i understand it the main principle is that of foreseeability. In that if you have brought your stress problem to the attention of your employer it is incumbent upon him to do something positive. That being the case then presumably the employer should consider the problem via an appropriate risk assessement, counselling or whatever. It is all a bit 'flakey.' From the employee point of view it would appear that employers have not yet got to 'grips' with the phenomenom of stress. Some employers have an explicit stress policy, risk assessment and others rely on a reactive tertiary measure such as counselling etc. I believe it is a huge and very complex issue and one that is not going to go away. The problem is interesting and I would be glad to hear other views. I am just starting a research proposal on stress (can work related stress be prevented?) as part of my MSc in Health and Management and so I have a vested interest in the subject. I am particlarly interested in proactive measures on the basis that prevention is less costly than the cure! Ray Rapp

Posted By Eddie Newall The World Health Organization (WHO) says more than half of deaths caused by heart disease and strokes worldwide could be prevented by simple measures, focusing on reducing blood pressure, cholesterol levels, obesity and smoking. Again, a significant link between the effects of stress the resulting morbidity and mortality.