Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By steve e ashton Another press item that might be worth a look -this time for those interested in health issues associated with asbestos: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7048840.stmNot sure what the ramifications may be for sufferers, but it does seem a touch harsh - despite there being apparently no debility or loss... Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Hoskins
Hi Steve,
Although there are no adverse physical effects, I would suggest that such a diagnoses could easily trigger a negative psychological response. The likely increase of worry and stress factors should have been considered in this decision, in my view.
Alan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Grace
Steve,
Harsh? There are established approaches for deciding compensation for physical injury which generally seem to work - people receive compensation for obvious and debilitating injuries. Similarly there are situations where those who have suffered "mental injury" receive compensation e.g. policemen at Hillsborough but not families watching the events many miles away.
The situation with pleural plaques is that there has been a detectable change (but only discernable on xray) with no other physical ill effect. So is such a condition worthy of compensation? Some would say yes, others no...!! As regards the possibility of "mental anguish" - what has been called "dread of disease" - this falls outside current approach to compensation for mental disorders - it is not deemed to require or be sufficient to be compensated.
If someone with plaques develops other asbestos related conditions e.g. mesothelioma then they can claim later.
Final point: so we think that those with plaques should be compensated... by whom? Insurers? And where will they get the money? From people who must take out EL insurance today. Are we all prepared to pay for negligence of others, for "mistakes" long in the past?
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steve e ashton And an update... In Scotland, the situation appears to have been reversed... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7118805.stmAlthough CAN ANYONE THROW LIGHT? - I know Health issues are devolved, so the MSPs could make this grand gesture - BUT - is this a Health and Safety issue (which is not devolved) - are the MSPs acting ultra vires? And, am I right in thinking that any appeal against compensation would eventually settle in the Lords anyway - where the initial decision against compensation was taken... What difference would a Scottish parliament ruling make in any Lords decision? Is it all smoke and mirrors? Anyone have any know-how to help me understand these issues please? Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Whether the SNP can do the required changes is a moot point as it will be very difficult to legislate that PP definitely leads to asbestos related diseases such as mesothelioma.
As far as civil damages are concerned the Lords decision stands unless a change in the law can be effected. I am not sure the SNP has the jurisdiction concerning the issue - it is not strictly purely health but is rather a change to civil law precedent that is required. I think terminology and definitions will be hard to come by.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By DRB
I can't see the changes in legislation actually taking place.
MacAskill said: "The effects of asbestos are a terrible legacy of Scotland's industrial past. That is why this Scottish Government is to take steps to reverse the House of Lords judgment and ensure that people with pleural plaques can continue to raise an action for damages."
What damages? Where's the loss?
The Law Lords ruling whilst seemingly harsh for those who have PP makes absolute sense. If there has been no loss what is there to claim damages from?
If one is to advance an argument that those with PP may suffer adverse effects due to worrying about developing mesothelioma at some later date why not also compensate those who worked in industries such as ship building and will have been exposed to asbestos. They, after all, have exactly the same worries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
DRB
Exactly. Many people have been exposed to asbestos over the years, I handled blue asbestos rope in the late sixties,without RPE, and one needs to think of all those still concerned about the effects. Is my concern any less than those with PP apparent, they are after all not a necessary pre-cursor to any disease. What about the bulk of the construction sector where deaths are now the most abundant.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
I saw this on Scottish TV News. Surely this is empty rhetoric and posturing by representatives of the Scottish Government (Scottish Executive as was). If the Law Lords have ruled, is the next step not European Courts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
This is an intersetsting debate!
Try telling people with PP that there is nothing wrong with them!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Dave W
Equally tell the bulk of the construction sector that they are not at risk and so do not need to have any worries. The problem is that worry over future possible disease is not restricted to those with pleural plaques. They may be benign they may not but equally some people will develop cancer without incurring plaques. Most people do not realise their exposure until post event. The stress and worry argument then falls as per the judgement.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
can't agree more Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Born in the 40's and worked in construction and the allied building trades?
You are high risk to develop asbestos related diseases and not a lot of people know that.
Today we are dealing with the legacy of what happened during the 50's 60's and 70's and millions of tons of this stuff was used with litlle or no protection.
I have an Original booklet called 'Control of Asbestos Dust' Technical data Note 35 produced by Dept of Employment, HM Factory Inspectorate in the early 70's (pre HASAW) and it is quite an eye opening read
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Dave W
I remember them well. Asbestos only affected factory workers manufacturing the stuff naccording to modern opinion in those days. Even Kent cigarettes promoted the microfine filter removing tars. It had significant crocidolite in it.
There is unfortunately a lot of previous exposures still to come out.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
I also have pictures and an article on the Kent micronite Cigarette filter contained 25% Crocidolite (Blue).
Smoke 20 a day for 1 year and inhale 20,000,000 blue asbestos fibres a year!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
With the wide prevalence of asbestos for so many years one does indeed wonder how the old "one fibre" story ever managed to be argued for. Indeed I wonder who over the age of 25 has not been exposed to some level of asbestos fibre.
It is cold comfort indeed that things have actually now improved but the numbers of deaths per annum are likely to rise for about another decade. It is a sad legacy and I know too many mesothelioma deaths. Primarily construction but backgrounds in chemicals, railways and major docks also figure heavily.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.