Jump to comment:
- Page navigation anchor for RE: Why is the occupation not mentioned in this case?RE: Why is the occupation not mentioned in this case?
It is not acceptable that in a lung cancer case, the occupation is not even mentioned.
The attributable fraction to work exposures for lung cancers is significant, as outlined in the 2019 burden of occupational cancers in Canada (see reference).
I would focus only on the most important occupational lung carcinogen: asbestos. Canada has a history with work-related lung cancers and asbestos, that has been banned very lately compared to other industrialized countries (2018, versus 1997 for France). Japan, the country of the authors of this paper, has done a better job with banning asbestos in 2006, but the carcinogenic effects of asbestos can be delayed up to 30 or 40 years, which means that it will still be an important topic, probably until 2040 at the minimum.
It is our common responsibility as physicians to do what we can to address work-related health issues. It has significant societal impact, as it may contribute to prevention, and individual impact for patients, as it may be a game changer in terms of financial compensation. It is also a matter of having the cost of healthcare supported by premiums paid to workers' compensation boards.
Competing Interests: None declared.References
- http://www.occupationalcancer.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/OCRC_National-Burden-Report_2019.pdf