Abstract
Pressure is mounting for clinicians to rely solely on objective measures when evaluating workers with possible work-related disease. These measures are intended to largely supplant the worker's history as sources of information regarding diagnosis, work relatedness, and extent of disability. While seeming to promote more accurate and neutral evaluation methods, the underlying agenda is to reduce business costs by denying work-related illness and disability. Promoting the view of occupational health as the province of technical experts, the campaign for the objective finding silences workers as unqualified to comment. The methods proposed to enhance objectivity also suffer from significant specific shortcomings. To resist efforts to fetishize the objective finding, clinicians need to recognize the subjective elements of objective methods as well as the objective value of subjective data. This requires recognition of the central role of workers and histories in the clinical evaluation process.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
