Professional exposure to carcinogenic substances: is occupational physicians' activity compatible with medical ethics and deontology?

Our plain-English summary of Professional exposure to carcinogenic substances: is occupational physicians' activity compatible with medical ethics and deontology?, by B. Clin, M. Letourneux, G. Launoy (Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2008).

The study

• Authors: B. Clin, M. Letourneux, G. Launoy
• Journal: Occupational and Environmental Medicine
• Published: 2008;65(9):577-8
• Type of article: Editorial
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This article is an editorial, an opinion piece that reports no new data. The authors asked whether occupational physicians' work fits with medical ethics when workers are exposed to carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic substances. They pointed out that French law requires occupational physicians to certify, before exposure, that a worker has no medical reason against such work. A decree of 1 February 2001 repeated this duty. A 1977 French decree set the same requirement for work involving inhalation of asbestos dust. The authors argued that these certificates are incompatible with articles 3 and 28 of the French Code of Medical Deontology. Article 28 forbids a convenience certificate. They noted that a French employee who refuses such work can lose the job if no other position exists. They added that physicians outside France face similar pressure without formal certificates. The authors concluded that the protector role of occupational physicians is increasingly difficult to uphold. They also concluded that the physicians' activity, as defined, is no longer compatible with certain values in several codes of ethics, particularly where carcinogenic substances are concerned.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Editorial (opinion piece); no study data
• Who was studied: No study population. The editorial concerns occupational physicians, chiefly in France, and their role toward workers' health.
• Exposure: Workplace exposure to carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic substances, including asbestos fibers covered by French decree no 77-949 of 17 August 1977
• Main results:
  • Authors' argument (not a data finding): the decree of 1 February 2001 repeats the French Labor Code obligation (article R.231-56-11) for occupational physicians to declare no contraindication before workers are exposed to carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic substances.
  • Authors' argument: under the 1977 asbestos decree, the law requires the occupational physician to sign 'apt' or 'absence of contraindication' forms for workers likely to develop cancer from occupational exposure to a carcinogen.
  • Authors' argument: this obligation is totally incompatible with articles 3 and 28 of the French Code of Medical Deontology.
  • Article 28 of that code, as quoted by the authors, forbids a tendentious report or a convenience certificate.
  • Authors' point: in France, refusing work, even on a physician's recommendation, can end the employment contract if no other suitable position exists in the company.
  • Authors' point: occupational physicians outside France are not required to issue such certificates but are tacitly compelled by their working conditions to allow work in companies using toxic agents.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the 'protector' role of occupational physicians is increasingly difficult to uphold. They also concluded that this activity, as defined, is no longer compatible with values in a number of codes of ethics, particularly for exposure to carcinogenic substances.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Carcinogenic.

Related studies

• Corruption of occupational medical literature: the asbestos example — H. Hardy, D. Egilman (1991)
• Oral and pharyngeal cancer risk associated with occupational carcinogenic substances: Systematic review — K.H. Awan, R. Hegde, et al. (2018)
• Asbestos: a continuing failure of ethics by McGill University — K. Ruff (2014)
• In vitro genotoxicity data of nanomaterials compared to carcinogenic potency of inorganic substances after inhalational exposure — M. Roller (2011)
• Irving John Selikoff and the strange case of the missing medical degrees — P.W. Bartrip (2003)
• Variability in interpretation among B-readers in the U.S. Navy Asbestos Medical Surveillance Program — J.G. Muller, J.M. Lieske, et al. (2008)

Browse more research in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, or return to medical research.