Next Article in Journal
Perceptions of Healthcare-Associated Infection and Antibiotic Resistance among Physicians Treating Syrian Patients with War-Related Injuries
Previous Article in Journal
Legionella Colonization of Hotel Water Systems in Touristic Places of Greece: Association with System Characteristics and Physicochemical Parameters
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Reply

Reply to “Comment on Iavicoli et al. Ethics and Occupational Health in the Contemporary World of Work. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1713”

1
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Epidemiology and Hygiene, Italian Workers’ Compensation Authority (INAIL), Via Fontana Candida 1, Monte Porzio Catone, 00078 Rome, Italy
2
Department of Public Health/Occupational Health, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 20 (Tukholmankatu 8 B), FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15(12), 2708; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122708
Submission received: 19 November 2018 / Revised: 22 November 2018 / Accepted: 22 November 2018 / Published: 30 November 2018
The authors would like to extend their thanks for the fruitful comments and suggestions, which are useful for conducting deeper analyses of the ethical concerns related to occupational health.
We were aware of the difficulty of structuring our study due to the limited number of studies found in literature, particularly those focused on the impact of globalisation and the changing world of work on the emerging ethical dilemmas in occupational health, as a testament to the legal awareness about the subject [1].
This represents an important limit, especially given the complexity of the topic discussed in “Ethics and occupational health in the contemporary world of work”, its philosophical, medical, economic, and legal implications, and the interactions between different issues (e.g., (a) the relationship between occupational health and safety on the one hand and labour rights on the other; (b) the impact of the changing world of work, demographic shifts, new technologies, globalization in relation to Occupational Health Professionals’ (OHPs) tasks and professional conduct; and (c) the introduction of new technologies and emerging ethical issues).
We fully agree that several issues could be further addressed and that more discussion is needed on the points of ethics in a globalising working life, as taken up in the commentary [2,3,4]. However, in this type of an article, we face the challenge of limiting the article to the stipulated word limit. This is particularly challenging in the case of such a multidimensional, dynamic issue as ethics in globalisation. For example, including various vulnerable groups of workers would have expanded the text substantially.
Starting from the consideration that there are still few studies about the procedures for addressing ethical issues in occupational health practice, we provided an overview of the main ethical concerns related to the changing world of work, in order to identify “drivers and barriers for correct professional ethics”, also thanks to the ethical analysis of the decision-making process in occupational health practice; this issue has not always been analysed in previous studies.
We analysed the ethical dilemma through an integrated approach, which simultaneously considers the individual, professional, and institutional ethical points of view; for each one, we considered aspects such as the person/body involved, the environment of operation, the philosophical basis, the field of application, value content, the learning arena, and guidance.
To this end, Table 1 is an attempt to visualise the complexity of the issue of occupational health ethics, due, for example, to the number of different actors and stakeholders involved (e.g., when compared to the traditional clinical doctor-patient relationship). It is also intended to demonstrate the differences between personal, professional, and institutional ethics, which are interdependent, may be in harmony, or may fall in conflict with each other. To give an example: We have recently seen an increasing number of cases of ethical misconduct due to the enormous pressure placed on professionals to obtain more funding for research programmes of their institution, and, vice versa, cases in which an individual professional has committed misconducted in the interest of gaining personal credit or money and thereby compromised patient safety and harmed the credibility of their institution. The ICOH amended Code of Ethics proposes a solution for including a paragraph in the working contract of OHPs on entitlement for applying ICOH code in their practice.
The identification of the “next step” for resolving the ethical challenges that OHPs will encounter could represent a starting point for recognising future proposals for ethical solutions, which might also include the engagement of different stakeholders (e.g., reinforcing social dialogue) [5]. Our intention was to stimulate the discussion about emerging ethical issues in occupational health practice in the contemporary world of work, and we are grateful that this seems to have occurred.
We would like to thank the editor for giving us the opportunity to provide a reply to the letter.

Author Contributions

All three authors contributed to the drafting of this response.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Iavicoli, S.; Marinaccio, A.; Vonesch, N.; Ursini, C.L.; Grandi, C.; Palmi, S. Research priorities in occupational health in Italy. Occup. Environ. Med. 2001, 58, 325–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Choi, S.D. Safety and ergonomic considerations for an aging workforce in the US construction industry. Work 2009, 33, 307–315. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. Frey, C.B.; Osborne, M.A. The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 144, 254–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Nübler, I. New Technologies: A Jobless Future or Golden Age of Job Creation? Research Department, ILO Working paper; International Labour Organization, Research Department: Genève, Switzerland, 2016; p. 13. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ertel, M.; Stilijanow, U.; Iavicoli, S.; Natali, E.; Jain, A.; Leka, S. European social dialogue on psychosocial risks at work: Benefits and challenges. Eur. J. Ind. Relat. 2010, 16, 169–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Personal, Professional and Institutional ethics.
Table 1. Personal, Professional and Institutional ethics.
(a). Target
Personal EthicsProfessional EthicsInstitutional Ethics
Person/body involvedIndividualExpertInstitution, company, (and their boards and chief executive officers)
Arena of operationHome, private life, community lifeWorkplace, association, public lifePublic environment, business life, community
(b). Philosophical and cultural bases, values, field of application
Personal ethicsProfessional ethicsInstitutional ethics
Philosophical and cultural basisReligious ethics, ethnicity, individual humanist ethics, or similarDeontologyDeontology
Field of applicationFamily, close community, school, workplaceSchool, university, workplace, professional association,
community
Institution, workplace, community, global economy
Value contentPersonal valuesProfessional valuesFive principles of CSR & Global Compact:
HonestyFairnessFair business
TrustworthinessRespect of autonomyAccountability
RespectBeneficenceTransparency
ResponsibilityNon-maleficenceHuman rights (HR)
IntegrityJusticeImplementing HR
FairnessCompetenceActing against HR abuses
Compassion, caringSkillFair employer
CourageConfidentialityWorkers’ rights
Elimination of inhuman labor
Anti-discrimination
Environment
Precautionary principle
Environmental responsibility and environment-friendly technologies
Anti-corruption
(c). Guidance and education
Personal ethicsProfessional ethicsInstitutional ethics
Learning arenaFamily, school, associations, churchTraining institutions, schools, universities, polytechnics, professional stagesUniversity, business school
GuidanceGuidance in general upbringing and school or religious educationProfessional codes of conduct, Good practice guidelines, Helsinki Declaration, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) guidelinesCSR, United Nations global compact

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Iavicoli, S.; Valenti, A.; Gagliardi, D.; Rantanen, J. Reply to “Comment on Iavicoli et al. Ethics and Occupational Health in the Contemporary World of Work. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1713”. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2708. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122708

AMA Style

Iavicoli S, Valenti A, Gagliardi D, Rantanen J. Reply to “Comment on Iavicoli et al. Ethics and Occupational Health in the Contemporary World of Work. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1713”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018; 15(12):2708. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122708

Chicago/Turabian Style

Iavicoli, Sergio, Antonio Valenti, Diana Gagliardi, and Jorma Rantanen. 2018. "Reply to “Comment on Iavicoli et al. Ethics and Occupational Health in the Contemporary World of Work. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1713”" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 12: 2708. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122708

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop