Skip header and navigation

Refine By

4 records – page 1 of 1.

The right to know about chemical hazards in Canada, 1982-2006.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature156967
Source
New Solut. 2008;18(2):233-43
Publication Type
Article
Date
2008
Author
Dave Bennett
Author Affiliation
daveandjoanne@mts.net
Source
New Solut. 2008;18(2):233-43
Date
2008
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Access to Information - legislation & jurisprudence
Canada
Disclosure - legislation & jurisprudence
Hazardous Substances
Humans
Information Services - legislation & jurisprudence
Occupational Exposure - legislation & jurisprudence
Occupational health - legislation & jurisprudence
Abstract
Traditionally in Canada, there are three health and safety rights: the right to participate (joint workplace health and safety committees); the right to refuse unsafe and unhealthy work; and the right to know about workplace hazards. By the end of the 1970s, the right to know had been established in law across Canada, but it was not enough to cover workplace chemical hazards in particular. The Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) was a project set up by the Canadian federal government in 1982 to address the issue. This article tells the story of how labor got the progressive WHMIS agreement(1985) and how the agreement has been implemented in the following years.
PubMed ID
18511399 View in PubMed
Less detail

The confidentiality of patient and physician information in pharmacy prescription records.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature181323
Source
CMAJ. 2004 Mar 2;170(5):815-6
Publication Type
Article
Date
Mar-2-2004
Author
Dick E Zoutman
B Douglas Ford
Assil R Bassili
Author Affiliation
Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Queen's University, 76 Stuart Street, Kingston, Ontario K7L 2V7, Canada. zoutman@cliff.path.queensu.ca
Source
CMAJ. 2004 Mar 2;170(5):815-6
Date
Mar-2-2004
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Access to Information - legislation & jurisprudence
Canada
Confidentiality - legislation & jurisprudence
Disclosure - legislation & jurisprudence
Drug Prescriptions
Humans
Informed Consent - legislation & jurisprudence
Medical Records Systems, Computerized - legislation & jurisprudence
Pharmacy
Physician-Patient Relations
Notes
Cites: JAMA. 2000 Jan 19;283(3):373-8010647801
Cites: J Law Med Ethics. 1997 Summer-Fall;25(2-3):98-110, 8211066504
Cites: CMAJ. 2000 Oct 31;163(9):1146-811079059
Cites: CMAJ. 2002 Aug 20;167(4):393-612197705
Cites: BMJ. 2003 Feb 15;326(7385):37312586673
Cites: CMAJ. 2003 Jul 8;169(1):5, 712847016
Cites: CMAJ. 1998 Oct 20;159(8):997-10169834730
Comment In: CMAJ. 2004 Sep 28;171(7):711-2; author reply 71215451823
PubMed ID
14993178 View in PubMed
Less detail

Attitudes about donor information differ greatly between IVF couples using their own gametes and those receiving or donating oocytes or sperm.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature280849
Source
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Jun;33(6):703-10
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jun-2016
Author
Agneta Skoog Svanberg
G. Sydsjö
M. Bladh
C. Lampic
Source
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Jun;33(6):703-10
Date
Jun-2016
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Access to Information - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Adolescent
Adult
Attitude
Family Characteristics
Female
Fertilization in Vitro - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Humans
Longitudinal Studies
Male
Oocyte Donation - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Spermatozoa
Sweden
Tissue Donors - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Abstract
The objective of the study is to examine attitudes towards aspects of donation treatment based on a national Swedish sample of gamete donors and couples undergoing assisted reproductive techniques (ART).
The present study was part of the Swedish study on gamete donation, a prospective longitudinal cohort study including all fertility clinics performing gamete donation in Sweden. The sample comprised 164 oocyte donors, 89 sperm donors, 251 people treated with their own gametes (in vitro fertilisation (IVF)), 213 oocyte recipients and 487 sperm recipients. A study-specific questionnaire was used.
Attitudes vary widely between couples using their own gametes for IVF and those receiving or donating oocyte or sperm. The groups differed in their responses to most questions. Oocyte and sperm donors were more likely to agree with the statements "The donor should be informed if the donation results in a child" and "Offspring should receive some information about the donor during mature adolescence" than recipients of donated gametes and couples treated with their own gametes.
Donor recipients, IVF couples and donors expressed different attitudes towards openness and information when it came to gamete donation, and those differences seemed to depend on their current reproductive situation.
Notes
Cites: Med J Aust. 2003 Feb 3;178(3):127-912558484
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2013 Sep;28(9):2432-923756704
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2004 Oct;19(10):2415-915310730
Cites: Public Underst Sci. 2009 Jan;18(1):61-7719579535
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2009 Aug;24(8):1930-819414865
Cites: Ups J Med Sci. 2013 Aug;118(3):187-9523786323
Cites: J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009 May;26(5):231-819472047
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2008 Apr;23(4):904-1118258766
Cites: Psychol Health. 2011 Sep;26(9):1113-2721929476
PubMed ID
27059774 View in PubMed
Less detail

[Information hygiene and regulation of information for vulnerable groups of the population].

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature263388
Source
Gig Sanit. 2014 Sep-Oct;(5):43-9
Publication Type
Article
Author
E I Denisov
A L Eremin
O V Sivochalova
N N Kurerov
Source
Gig Sanit. 2014 Sep-Oct;(5):43-9
Language
Russian
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Access to Information - legislation & jurisprudence
Government Regulation
Human Rights - legislation & jurisprudence - standards
Humans
Hygiene - legislation & jurisprudence - standards
Information Services - legislation & jurisprudence - standards
Internet - legislation & jurisprudence - statistics & numerical data
Russia
Safety - legislation & jurisprudence
Vulnerable Populations - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Abstract
Development of information society engenders the problem of hygienic regulation of information load for the population, first of all for vulnerable groups. There are presented international and Russian normative legal documents and experience in this area, there are described the negative effects of information (such as stress, depression, suicidal ideations). There are considered social-psychological characteristics of vulnerable groups that requires their best protection from loads of information, doing harm, particularly in terms of reproductive health, family relationships, children, etc. There was noted the desirability of improvement of sanitary, legislation on the regulation of the information load on the population, especially in vulnerable groups, in terms of optimization of parameters of the signal-carriers on volume, brightness and the adequacy of the volume and content of information in radio and television broadcasting, in an urban environment and at the plant to preserve the health and well-being of the population.
PubMed ID
25831927 View in PubMed
Less detail