13 Mar 2009 |
|
There have been several reports about the health of the President of Nigeria and this article is not to discuss that issue. We all know that there are confidentiality issues around personal medical information and individuals have rights to keeping their medical information confidential unless they give their consent or if there is a greater effect on public interest over and above the right of the individual. Therefore probing into such information is usually not in the best interest of the individual and most individuals will resist it. With regards to the President, what appears to be evident is that all may not be well with him based on the information available in the public domain especially the past history of ill health even before he took over as President. I believe that no matter what anybody says, the ongoing interest in his health could not be said to be misplaced as he holds the highest office in the land and therefore public interest is justified. Any body can be ill, and take time off work so long as appropriate measures are in place to carry out the individual’s duties in the absence. The only worry I have had is the information flow management so far. I wish him well if he still has any health concern. The reason why I have started this article with the issues around the health of the President is that he is the number one worker in the country. The health of workers it appears has not been taken seriously in the country. Government is the largest employer of labour and therefore needs to ensure that it has a healthy workforce. Occupational health is the management of the relationship between work and health. It is managing the effects of health on work and vice versa. In the workplace, occupational health traditionally has been viewed as dealing strictly with injuries and illnesses arising from the job like painful wrist caused by word processing or fractured wrists from falling on slippery floors or exposure to chemicals. Yet, a much larger portion of employers' health care costs stem in some way from employees' lifestyles and genetics. In 2006, the World Health Organization gave a global commitment and advised that countries should do the following:
There is increasing evidence that workers health is determined not only by the traditional and newly emerging occupational risks, but also by social inequalities, such as employment status, income, gender, and race, as well as by health-related behaviour and access to health services. A healtyhy workforce begins with healthy employees at pre-employment. This does not rule out employing persons with disabilities or health problems so long as such health problems are declared apriori to the employment. Afterall attempts have been made by the Immigrations Service though their procedure might have been faulty leading to deaths. The Armed Forces, Police and other paramilitary do it. The coprporate multinationals do it. My believe therefore is that it is not that we are not aware of the issue. It is the political will to enforce it for all workers including political office holders and doing it the right way. So I do not think it is impossible to do in Nigeria. However, one must point out that improving occupational health isn’t like fixing a pothole. There is nothing for a politician to point to and say, “My party takes credit for that.” Results aren’t visible within an election cycle. Yet occupational health affects us in ways that last longer than the roads we drive on, or the items we purchase with the money politicians promise to save us. Everyone agrees in theory that preventing illness is the best way to deal with disease. It’s best for the workers who don’t suffer, and for their families. It’s the most cost effective approach in saving money from health as well. Yet preventing illness and protecting health by reducing work pressures is not popular with most politicians. Committed individuals, determined non-profit organizations, courageous scientists and doctors and a few farsighted politicians and civil servants are the ones who are making sure occupational health issues are recognized and acted on. It has also been acknowledged by organizations that their least healthy employees are responsible for more costly medical claims and a higher absenteeism rate." How do we get occupational health more firmly on the political agenda? There’s no quick fix. Continuing to develop an understanding about what is at stake, and demonstrating by our words and our actions that occupational health is crucial to all of us who are workers, will hopefully lead to an informed working population demanding action which politicians can no longer ignore. Going back to my original topic, “Putting Occupational Health on the Political Agenda”, I think the time cannot be better than now. Over the last two years, there have been newspaper reports on illness of many of our politicians. We have had some legislators who have collapsed on the floor of the house and some who have died prematurely in their tenure. No body knows how many workers have died from work related illnesses. So another election cycle will soon begin and I believe that workers’ health will make a good campaign point. This is therefore the time for workers to task politicians with regards to what can be done for them to safe guard and improve their health. Occupational health improvements do not have to be costly A procedure has to be in place recognised by law under health and safety. The effort starts with a preplacement examination that determines an individual's functional capacity to perform a given job and establishes a baseline against which to measure future changes in health status. Periodic health risk appraisals provide continuing monitoring of health, while medical surveillance programs monitor employees who may be exposed to certain on-the-job risks. Wellness and health promotion programs seek to educate employees about good health practices and to help them deal with common health risks such as smoking, obesity or high blood pressure. It may appear that keeping workers healthier cost more in the short term, the costs may well decrease with time, as the demand for less health increases and healthier practices become more routine. If we count the full costs of our decisions, including the hidden costs like health, productivity, and behaviour problems, integrating occupational health into decision making at all levels clearly reduces costs to society. The barriers are lack of vision and political will. With political will and a willingness to change “the way we have always done things”, major steps can be made to protect workers’ health. Putting occupational health on the political agenda requires long term vision. It means assessing risks and benefits by looking at the complete long term costs of our actions. It requires not bowing to the pressure of rich and powerful people, who have the means to go overseas for medical check ups at the expense of state funds. Nigeria is a country where people are very secretive about their health even when they are dying. Occupational health for all will change our economy and our way of life. Most people care deeply about their health and the health of their children. When governments at any level make commitments to occupational health for all, significant changes can be made. If we see Nigeria as a concern that needs to succeed then the strong message here is that good health is good business
|
|||||||||
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.