Shouldn’t the determination of work-related injuries be more considerate?

Thread Content

This post was last edited by 68589544 on 2016-10-12 at 17:30. Recently, a news story stating that a woman died after fainting at work, and that more than 48 hours of attempts to save her were not considered work-related injuries, has drawn widespread attention from the public. Ms. Cheng, who was working in Shenzhen, died suddenly during working hours. Even after doctors declared her brain dead, her husband refused to give up and insisted on trying to save her. After more than 48 hours of attempts to save her, the efforts were unsuccessful and the woman sadly passed away. Since the wife died suddenly from an illness while at work, can an application be made for recognition of it as a work-related injury? Ms. Cheng’s husband’s request was rejected by the Shenzhen Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, on the grounds that according to current regulations, an employee can only be considered to have suffered a work-related injury if they die suddenly from an illness while at work and at their workplace, or if they die within 48 hours despite attempts to save them. As a result, Ms. Cheng’s family took the Shenzhen Human Resources and Social Security Bureau to court. The Yantian District Court dismissed the family’s lawsuit request. The rule stating that deaths occurring more than 48 hours after rescue are not considered work-related injuries is indeed a clear provision of current regulations. Under the current Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance, an employee who dies suddenly from an illness while at work and at their workplace, or dies within 48 hours despite emergency treatment, is considered to have suffered a work-related injury; death that occurs more than 48 hours after the start of emergency treatment is not considered a work-related injury. Both the local \"Guangdong Province Work-Related Injury Insurance Regulations\" and the \"Work-Related Injury Insurance Regulations\" issued by the State Council stipulate clearly that death due to a sudden illness occurring during working hours and at the workplace, or death within 48 hours despite attempts to save the life, is considered a work-related injury. On the surface, it is indeed lawful for the court to reject the family’s litigation requests in accordance with the Work-related Injury Insurance Regulations, and there are no issues with the judgment itself. Naturally, the much-criticized aspect is the overly rigid \"48-hour limit,\" which highlights the excessive focus on the timing of rescue efforts in the determination of work-related injuries. In fact, in recent years, there has been an increasing call from society to revise the standards for determining work-related injuries. In 2012, a construction worker in Shandong suffered a stroke while at work. During the emergency treatment, the labor agency demanded that the hospital use a ventilator to keep him alive, insisting that he must be kept alive for 48 hours. It was only after consulting a lawyer that his family learned that if more than 48 hours passed, it would no longer be considered an occupational injury, and the company would not be required to pay any compensation. “This put the whole family in a difficult situation; they wanted to save their father, but were worried that they wouldn’t be able to get any compensation. This case makes it clear that companies deliberately delay treatment in order to avoid paying compensation for work-related injuries, while family members are forced to make a difficult choice between saving their loved one’s life or securing compensation for the work-related injury. In 2014, Chang Keqin, an associate chief physician in a certain department at Beijing Fuwai Hospital, fainted in the operating room due to a brainstem hemorrhage; he died after a month of treatment, and since it took more than 48 hours for his case to be recognized as an occupational injury, it sparked another wave of intense debate on the Internet. Xinhua News Agency issued a commentary at the time stating that the key to determining work-related injuries should not be the timing, but rather what caused the death. As long as an illness occurs suddenly during working hours at the workplace and is related to the duration or intensity of work, it is consistent with the intent of the legislation to consider it an occupational injury, regardless of how long it takes to provide emergency treatment. In our country’s determination of work-related injuries, an excessive focus on the timing of emergency treatment tends to distort the original intent of the legislation. The key to the criteria for determining work-related injuries lies in the legislative balance between the interests of enterprises and employees. Legislators must find the greatest common denominator between the interests of businesses and employees. If the criteria for determination are too lenient, it is inevitable that loopholes will arise for fraudulent claims for work-related injury compensation, thereby increasing the burden on enterprises; on the other hand, if the criteria are too strict, it may result in a lack of humanitarian consideration in the regulations, affecting the rights and interests of employees. The overly rigid rule that deaths occurring more than 48 hours after an accident are not considered work-related injuries forces the families of the deceased to face a difficult choice between seeking compensation or preserving their loved one’s life, thereby increasing ethical risks. As is well known, the fundamental premise of the rule of law is legislation, that is, the creation of good laws. A good law is one that is guided by conscience, a law that shows human concern and warmth, rather than a law that is cold and heartless. From this perspective, the traditional and overly rigid standards for determining work-related injuries need to be revised; the 48-hour limit should be adjusted. It is necessary to incorporate appropriate humanistic considerations so that the legal system remains strict yet flexible and compassionate, thereby giving work-related injury assessments a more humane touch. Of course, simply adjusting the 48-hour deadline for work-related injury recognition cannot completely resolve the underlying issues associated with such recognition. Even if the 48-hour deadline for determining work-related injuries is extended to 72 hours, or even 96 hours, it will still face certain ethical dilemmas. From the perspective of family members, they always hope that their loved ones’ lives can last longer. In this regard, some flexible provisions for determining work-related injuries can be introduced as appropriate; delays that occur solely due to efforts to provide first aid should not be used as a reason to deny a work-related injury claim. The main criteria for determining work-related injuries should not rely solely on time factors, but also take into account the specific circumstances of the death. It is worth noting that, in addition to flexible adjustments to the time frames, the criteria for death should also be clearly defined in legislation as regards brain death. In the case of the female worker in Shenzhen who died from an illness that struck her during working hours, doctors declared her brain dead within 48 hours of attempts to save her life, but her family insisted on continuing the treatment efforts, thus going beyond those 48 hours. The international medical community has reached a consensus that brain death is the criterion for death, whereas Chinese law still adopts a comprehensive set of criteria, namely the cessation of breathing, the stoppage of the heart, and the disappearance of pupillary reflexes. In fact, in practice, China currently only recognizes the heart-death criterion. It is reported that nearly 90 countries around the world have **adopted criteria for identifying brain death. Our country began discussing legislation on brain death in the 1980s, but establishing legislative standards has proven difficult. It is recommended that the legislature bring legislation on brain death back to the agenda as soon as possible, in order to legally establish a legal status for brain death along with specific criteria. In short, the rule that injuries occurring beyond 48 hours are not considered work-related injuries reflects a lack of humanistic consideration in laws and regulations; the rigid 48-hour limit needs to be adjusted, and there is no need to delay changing the traditional criteria for determining work-related injuries. Legislators must infuse legal texts with the necessary humanistic considerations, so that the legal system remains firm yet flexible and compassionate, and so that the process of determining work-related injuries is more humane.