Interesting one. As Diana Kloss is a visiting professor for our programme and frequently teaches our students I will see if she can can give us an answer on the Human Rights issue. If applicants are told of the policy at recruitment and they decide to take the job that may have been taken care of.
Anne
On 21/12/2011 12:28, "Wendy Stimson Ladd" <[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi All
Another consideration (apologies if already mentioned) is The Human Rights Act! Clearly where there is a safety critical role etc that is acceptable but if blanket screening is introduced to all, including non-scw, and bearing in mind that a smoke of something at the weekend will still be detected the next week, if it is not affecting their ability to do their job, no safety risk, then you could be breaching their Human Rights!!
Merry Christmas and Best Wishes for 2012
Wendy
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Hawkins, Matthew X <[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi List,
I'm just trying to undertake a bit of benchmarking.
For those of you who undertake testing, can you please advise if you have any criteria for such testing relative to risk, e.g. only for safety critical roles, and whether this is undertaken pre-placement?
Appears like an obvious question (or questions), but we are currently having the internal debate/consultation in the policy review process. There are a number of 'non-OH' people pushing for testing for all, which we don't support either ethically or based on risk and the evidence supporting such testing and the benefits doesn't appear to be there to any great extent.
Any responses gratefully received.
Matt Hawkins
******************************** Please remove this footer before replying.
OCC-HEALTH ARCHIVES: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/occ-health.html
CONFERENCES AND STUDY DAYS: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?LMGT1=OCC-HEALTH