AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bayer, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bayer, R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Disability
Right arrow Ethics
Right arrow Health Law
Right arrow Health Policy
Right arrow Hepatitis
Right arrow Occupational Health
April 2003, Vol 93, No. 4 | American Journal of Public Health 540-544
© 2003 American Public Health Association

HEALTH POLICY AND ETHICS FORUM

Workers’ Liberty, Workers’ Welfare: The Supreme Court Speaks on the Rights of Disabled Employees

Ronald Bayer, PhD

The author is with the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Ronald Bayer, PhD, Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health, Mailman School of Public Health, 722 W 168th St, New York, NY 10032 (e-mail: rb8{at}columbia.edu).

On June 10, 2002, a unanimous US Supreme Court rejected the claim by Mario Echazabal that he had been denied his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act when Chevron USA had refused to employ him because he had hepatitis C. Chevron believed that Echazabal’s exposure to hepatotoxic chemicals in its refinery would pose a grave risk to his health.

This case poses critical questions about the ethics of public health: When, if ever, is paternalism justified? Must choice always trump other values? What ought to be the balance between welfare and liberty?

Strikingly, the groups that came to Echazabal’s defense adopted an antipaternalistic posture fundamentally at odds with the ethical foundations of occupational health and safety policy.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2003 by the American Public Health Association