The Right to Know The Duty to Inform

Our plain-English summary of The Right to Know The Duty to Inform, by L.B. Tepper (1980).

The study

• Author: L.B. Tepper
• Published: Journal of Occupational Medicine, Volume 22 No.7, July 1980.
• Type of article: Journal article
• Our copy: from Johns-Manville's own medical library. The article is still under copyright, so we describe it here rather than post it.

In plain English

This article was not a research study. It was the printed text of the Sappington Memorial Lecture. In it, the author argued that workers, management, the public (including customers) and colleagues in the health professions have a right to understand occupational risks and product hazards, and that health professionals share a duty to inform them. Asbestos was mentioned only once, in a partly unreadable passage, together with vinyl chloride and DBCP. Right after it, the author argued that workers must rely less on their senses and more on knowledge. The author argued that complete disclosure of risks is essential when offering employment. The author described one experience: workers handling sodium nitrite complained about a perceived hazard, and after the facts were explained and they reviewed the data, none sought reassignment. The author also discussed material safety data sheets, videotapes, unions, emergency preparedness and medical education. The author concluded that these groups must become better informed, and that occupational physicians and nurses have a vital role in this teaching.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: lecture / commentary (Sappington Memorial Lecture); not a research study
• Who was studied: No study population. The lecture discussed four groups the author said have a right to be informed: workers, management, the public (including customers), and colleagues in the health professions
• Exposure: No specific exposure was studied. Asbestos was named once, in a partly garbled passage, alongside vinyl chloride and DBCP. The passage continues by saying workers must rely less on sensory perceptions.
• Main results:
  • The author's position (an argument, not a measured finding): complete disclosure of risks is an essential element in offering employment
  • Anecdote reported by the author: a group of workers handling sodium nitrite, whose use in meat cures had been linked to cancer in laboratory studies, complained about a perceived hazard. After the facts were explained and the workers reviewed the data, none sought reassignment.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that workers, managements, the public and medical colleagues must become better informed about occupational and environmental hazards, and that occupational physicians and nurses have a vital role in this teaching

Browse return to medical research.