Occupational health protection for self-employed personnel varies greatly across the world, as there is no global standard for such protection. In some countries, self-employed individuals are covered under the same occupational health and safety laws as employees, while in others, they are not covered at all. This lack of uniformity can make it difficult for self-employed individuals to access the resources and protections they need to maintain their health and safety at work.
In the European Union, self-employed individuals are covered under the Occupational Health and Safety Framework Directive, which requires employers to identify and assess occupational health and safety risks, provide information and training to workers, and take steps to prevent workplace accidents and illnesses (European Commission, 1989). However, enforcement of these protections can vary across member states, and self-employed individuals may not always be aware of their rights under the directive.
In the United States, self-employed workers are generally not covered under federal occupational health and safety laws, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970 (OSHA, 2021). However, some states have extended OSHA protections to self-employed individuals or have their own occupational health and safety laws that cover self-employed workers (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2019).
In Malaysia, the Self-Employment Social Security Act was introduced in 2017 to provide social security protection to self-employed individuals such as freelancers, gig workers, and taxi drivers (Government of Malaysia, 2017). The act established the Self-Employment Social Security Fund (SESSF), which provides benefits such as medical and dental care, disability pensions, and funeral benefits to eligible self-employed individuals. The SESSF is managed by PERKESO, the national social security organization in Malaysia.
The lack of occupational health and safety protections for self-employed individuals can have significant implications for their health and wellbeing. Research has shown that self-employed workers are at higher risk of occupational injuries and illnesses than employees (McKay et al., 2020). This is due in part to the fact that self-employed workers may not have access to the same resources and protections as employees, such as training and education, protective equipment, and health services.
A study conducted by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work found that self-employed individuals are less likely than employees to have access to occupational health and safety training and to receive information on workplace hazards (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2018). This can lead to a lack of awareness of the risks associated with their work and a failure to take appropriate precautions to protect their health and safety.
In addition to the direct impact on the health and wellbeing of self-employed individuals, the lack of occupational health protections can also have wider economic implications. Occupational injuries and illnesses can result in lost productivity and increased healthcare costs, which can have a negative impact on the economy as a whole (LaMontagne et al., 2017).
According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), around 61 percent of the world's workforce is self-employed or engaged in informal work. This means that a significant portion of the global workforce may not be covered by occupational health protections (ILO, 2021). The ILO recommends that self-employed workers should have access to the same occupational health and safety protections as employees, and there are examples of countries such as Malaysia and the European Union that have implemented such protections. By providing self-employed workers with the resources and protections they need to maintain their health and safety at work, we can help to ensure a healthier and more productive workforce.
References:
European Commission. (1989). Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31989L0391
Government of Malaysia. (2017). Self-Employment Social Security Act 2017. Retrieved from https://www.perkeso.gov.my/en/self-employment-social-security-act-2017
International Labour Organization. (2021). Informal economy. Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/informal-economy/lang--en/index.htm
LaMontagne, A. D., Keegel, T., Louie, A. M., Ostry, A., & Landsbergis, P. A. (2017). A systematic review of the job-stress intervention evaluation literature, 1990-2005. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 13(3), 268-280.
McKay, S., Schmid, G., & Goudswaard, A. (2020). Occupational health and safety of self-employed workers. In A. Deiters, M. Kümmerling, M. Frommhold, & M. Habscheid (Eds.), Self-employment in times of crisis (pp. 55-67). Springer.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2019). Self-employed workers. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/selfemployed/default.html
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2021). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/faqs/general#q5
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. (2018). OSH in figures: Occupational safety and health in the transport sector — An overview. Retrieved from https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/reports/osh-figures-occupational-safety-and-health-transport-sector-overview/view
This article is downloadable at : https://nosbin.com/nevent1qqs0kvwlkx22f7036ytu2e7szfwlqqzwqmkvzhe6k4038cklettcv6gpq4skymm4wsqsvcnpdehx2usppdjxjumsd3shjnnpd4jszrryd9ehqmrp090kuctdv5qs2mr4vscrvqg9d36kgvfkqyzxuctdv5qs2mnfwqcr2qg8wp5kxar4wfjszzr4wdjhymnpd4jszpmhv438x6t5v5q3vamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwdehhxcnfdchxxmmd6zz0l7
credit to #[0] for Nosbin
Parents' love is eternal. They want the best for their children and would do anything to protect them from harm. However, in the face of a child's life and death situation, love may not be adequate enough.
In some cases, parents may refuse medical treatment for their child, citing religious or personal beliefs, which may result in the loss of custody. This essay will examine several legal cases where parents have lost custody of their children due to their refusal to provide necessary medical treatment and the relevant laws in several countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Malaysia.
In the United States, parents' rights to make decisions for their children are not absolute. When a child's life is at risk, the state has a compelling interest in ensuring that the child receives necessary medical treatment. In some cases, this may require the state to intervene and remove the child from the custody of the parents. In the landmark case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Supreme Court held that parents have a First Amendment right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, but this right does not extend to denying a child necessary medical treatment (406 U.S. 205, 1972).
Similarly, in the United Kingdom, parents have a duty to provide medical treatment for their children. The Children Act 1989 requires parents to provide for their children's "physical, emotional, and educational needs" (s. 1(1)). The act also gives courts the power to make orders for the protection of children, including the power to order medical treatment. In the case of Re C, the court ordered that a child receive chemotherapy for leukemia over the objections of her parents (2015 EWHC 558 (Fam)).
While one may think that such law only exist in western countries, this is very much untrue, especially for eastern countries which are part of the commonwealth realm. In Malaysia, parents also have a duty to provide medical treatment for their children. The Child Act 2001 requires parents to provide for their children's "maintenance, protection, and education." The act also gives courts the power to make orders for the protection of children, including the power to order medical treatment. In the case of NAA v. MCMC, the court ordered that a child receive blood transfusions over the objections of her parents, who were Jehovah's Witnesses (2018 2 MLJ 1).
These laws demonstrate that a parent's right to make decisions for their child must be balanced against the child's right to receive necessary medical treatment. While parents have the right to raise their children in accordance with their religious or personal beliefs, this right does not extend to denying a child necessary medical treatment. The state has a compelling interest in ensuring that children receive necessary medical treatment, and courts have the power to intervene and order such treatment when necessary.
In conclusion, while parents' love is eternal, it may not always be enough to ensure the health and well-being of their children. The laws in the United States, United Kingdom, and Malaysia recognize the importance of balancing parents' rights with children's rights to receive necessary medical treatment. Ultimately, the state has a responsibility to protect the welfare of children, and this may require the state to intervene and remove a child from the custody of their parents to ensure that they receive necessary medical treatment.
References:
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
Children Act 1989, c. 41 (UK).
Re C, [2015] EWHC 558 (Fam).
Child Act 2001, Act 611 (Malaysia).
NAA v. MCMC, [2018] 2 MLJ 1.