Germany introduced compulsory industrial accident insurance in 1884. The accident-insurance system compensated injured workers and survivors for losses, but initially failed to limit the growth of accident rates. We trace this failure to the 1884 law's faulty incentives and to an initial unwillingness to use the tools built into the law. The government regulator increasingly stressed rules that forced firms to adopt specific safety-enhancing innovations and practices. Econometric analysis shows that more consistent use of the rules and the limited incentives available under the law would have reduced industrial accidents earlier and more extensively.
The major industrial accidents threatening the citizens develop especially in the largest strategic chemical companies in the whole EU. The rise of such an event affects not only the people but also the environment and causes big financial losses and very often deteriorates the company´s reputation. The article reflects the changes in the area of preventing major industrial accidents during last 5 years in dependence how they are perceived by the companies. The basic threshold was the year 2013 when the new directive SEVESO III was adopted in the EU and subsequently the member states had to adapt it in their legal environment. A research was carried among the SEVESO establishments in Slovakia and the results are published in this article. In spite of the alteration of the law it is possible to identify several changes which are to be done also in the next period. The article shows the results from the statistical research, the conclusions from meetings with the SEVESO establishments in Slovakia and consultations with the competent authority – the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic. The results revealed a whole range of problems which were implemented in the law already in 2015. In spite of this fact some problems persist and it is necessary to solve them in the near future. Based on the meeting with experts from other EU countries and on the comparison of the results we can say that similar problems are found also in other member states.
“My patient refuses thickened liquids, should I discharge them from my caseload?” A version of this question appears at least weekly on the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's Community pages. People talk of respecting the patient's right to be non-compliant with speech-language pathology recommendations. We challenge use of the word “respect” and calling a patient “non-compliant” in the same sentence: does use of the latter term preclude the former?
In this article we will share our reflections on why we are interested in these so called “ethical challenges” from a personal case level to what our professional duty requires of us. Our proposal is that the problems that we encounter are less to do with ethical or moral puzzles and usually due to inadequate communication. We will outline resources that clinicians may use to support their work from what seems to be a straightforward case to those that are mired in complexity. And we will tackle fears and facts regarding litigation and the law.
Incentives That (Could Have) Saved Lives: Government Regulation of Accident Insurance Associations in Germany, 1884–1914