[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
August 1978

Occupational Health Service

Author Affiliations

Cincinnati

Arch Intern Med. 1978;138(8):1304. doi:10.1001/archinte.1978.03630330098037

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

To the Editor.—  The article by Tucker et al (Archives 138:77-79, 1978) may be used as a model by other medical centers for the development of an occupational health service. I believe it would be useful to emphasize a distinction between certain required and voluntary procedures.Tucker and coauthors report tetanus immunization as being a requirement for some groups. It should be strongly encouraged but in the absence of a specific legal mandate, one may encounter problems in enforcing it as a requirement, especially when the immunization is primarily for the benefit of the employee and failure to be immunized would not place others at risk.This may be compared with tuberculin skin testing or chest roentgenograms for tuberculosis control. Although the employee will benefit, the principal justification for making it a requirement is the protection of others, primarily patients but also fellow workers. In many jurisdictions the testing is

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×