4 key things to know about lung infections caused by fungi

Justice And Fairness

Justice and Fairness

By Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez

When Beatrice Norton was fourteen, she followed in her mother's footsteps and began working in the cotton mill. In 1968, after a career in the mill, she had to stop working because of her health. Years of exposure to cotton dust had resulted in a case of "brown lung," a chronic and sometimes fatal disease with symptoms similar to asthma and emphysema. In 1977, she testified at a congressional hearing, asking that the government require companies to provide disability compensation for victims of the disease similar to the compensation companies provided for other similar diseases.

I worked in the dust year after year...I got sicker and sicker. In 1968 I suddenly had no job, no money, and I was too sick to ever work in my life again. State legislators have proven in two successive sessions that they are not going to do anything to help the brown lung victims, so now we come to you in Washington and ask for help. We've waited a long time, and many of us have died waiting. I don't want to die of injustice.

Another woman, Mrs. Vinnie Ellison, spoke bitterly about the way her husband had been treated when the illness caught up with him after twenty-one years at a cotton mill:

In the early sixties he started having trouble keeping up his job because of his breathing. In 1963 his bossman told him that he had been a good worker, but wasn't worth a damn anymore and fired him. He had no pension and nothing to live on. My husband worked long and hard and lost his health because of the dust. It isn't fair that the mill threw him away like so much human garbage after he couldn't keep up his job because he was sick from the dust.

To Mrs. Norton and Mrs. Ellison, receiving compensation for the debilitating effects of brown lung similar to that given to other diseases was a simple matter of justice. In making their case, their arguments reflected a long tradition in Western civilization. In fact, no idea in Western civilization has been more consistently linked to ethics and morality than the idea of justice. From the Republic, written by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, to A Theory of Justice, written by the contemporary Harvard philosopher John Rawls, every major work on ethics has held that justice is part of the central core of morality.

Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves, or, in more traditional terms, giving each person his or her due. The Nortons and Ellisons of this world, for example, are asking for what they feel they deserve; they are demanding that they be treated with justice and fairness. When people differ over what they believe should be given, or when decisions have to be made about how benefits and burdens should be distributed among a group of people, questions of justice or fairness inevitably arise. In fact, most ethicists today hold the view that there would be no point of talking about justice or fairness if it were not for the conflicts of interest that are created when goods and services are scarce and people differ over who should get what. When such conflicts arise in our society, we need principles of justice that we can all accept as reasonable and fair standards for determining what people deserve.

But saying that justice is giving each person what he or she deserves does not take us very far. How do we determine what people deserve? What criteria and what principles should we use to determine what is due to this or that person?

Principles of JusticeThe most fundamental principle of justice -- one that has been widely accepted since it was first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago -- is the principle that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally." In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows: "Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved." For example, if Jack and Jill both do the same work, and there are no relevant differences between them or the work they are doing, then in justice they should be paid the same wages. And if Jack is paid more than Jill simply because he is a man, or because he is white, then we have an injustice -- a form of discrimination -- because race and sex are not relevant to normal work situations.

There are, however, many differences that we deem as justifiable criteria for treating people differently. For example, we think it is fair and just when parents give their own children more attention and care in their private affairs than they give the children of others; we think it is fair when the person who is first in a line at a theater is given first choice of theater tickets; we think it is just when the government gives benefits to the needy that it does not provide to more affluent citizens; we think it is just when some who have done wrong are given punishments that are not meted out to others; and we think it is fair when those who exert more efforts or who make a greater contribution to a project receive more benefits from the project than others. These criteria -- need, desert, contribution, and effort -- that we acknowledge as justifying differential treatment, then, are numerous.

On the other hand, there are also criteria that we believe are not justifiable grounds for giving people different treatment. In the world of work, for example, we generally hold that it is unjust to give individuals special treatment on the basis of age, sex, race, or religious preference. If the judge's nephew receives a suspended sentence for armed robbery when another offender goes to jail for the same crime, or the brother of the Director of Public Works gets the million dollar contract to install sprinklers on the municipal golf course despite lower bids from other contractors, we say that it's unfair. We also believe it isn't fair when a person is punished for something over which he or she had no control, or isn't compensated for a harm he or she suffered. And the people involved in the "brown lung hearings" felt that it wasn't fair that some diseases were provided with disability compensation, while other similar diseases weren't.

Different Kinds of JusticeThere are different kinds of justice. Social justice or distributive justice refers to the extent to which society's institutions ensure that benefits and burdens are distributed among society's members in ways that are fair and just. When the institutions of a society distribute benefits or burdens in unjust ways, there is a strong presumption that those institutions should be changed. For example, the American institution of slavery in the pre-civil war South was condemned as unjust because it was a glaring case of treating people differently on the basis of race; and the same is often said of the apartheid system of South Africa today which continues to distribute political and economic benefits on the basis of race.

A second important kind of justice is retributive or corrective justice. Retributive justice refers to the extent to which punishments are fair and just. In general, punishments are held to be just to the extent that they take into account relevant criteria such as the seriousness of the crime and the intent of the criminal, and discount irrelevant criteria such as race. It would be barbarously unjust, for example, to chop off a person's hand for stealing a dime, or to impose the death penalty on a person who by accident and without negligence injured another party. Studies have frequently shown that when blacks murder whites, they are much more likely to receive death sentences than when whites murder whites or blacks murder blacks. These studies suggest that injustice still exists in the criminal justice system in the United States.

Yet a third important kind of justice is compensatory justice. Compensatory justice refers to the extent to which people are fairly compensated for their injuries by those who have injured them; just compensation is proportional to the loss inflicted on a person. This is precisely the kind of justice that was at stake in the brown lung hearings. Those who testified at the hearings claimed that the owners of the cotton mills where workers had been injured should compensate the workers whose health had been ruined by conditions at the mills.

The foundations of justice can be traced to the notions of social stability, interdependence, and equal dignity. As the ethicist John Rawls has pointed out, the stability of a society -- or any group, for that matter -- depends upon the extent to which the members of that society feel that they are being treated justly. When some of society's members come to feel that they are subject to unequal treatment, the foundations have been laid for social unrest, disturbances, and strife. The members of a community, Rawls holds, depend on each other, and they will retain their social unity only to the extent that their institutions are just. Moreover, as the philosopher Immanuel Kant and others have pointed human beings are all equal in this respect: they all have the same dignity and in virtue of this dignity the serve to be treated as equals. Whenever individuals are treated unequally on the basis of characteristics that are arbitrary and irrelevant, their ft mental human dignity is violated.

Justice, then, is a central part of ethics and should be given due consideration in our moral lives. In evaluating any moral decision, we must ask whether our actions treat all per equally. If not, we must determine whether the difference in treatment justified: are the criteria we are using relevant to the situation at hand?

But justice isn't the only principle consider in making ethical decisions. Sometimes, principles of justice need to be overridden in favor of other kinds of moral claims such as rights or society's welfare. Nevertheless, justice is an expression of our mutual recognition of each other's basic unity, and an acknowledgement that if we are to live together in an interdependent community we must treat each other as equals.

Mine Safety Advocates Urge Senate Committee To Do More To Help Miners With Black Lung Disease

The U.S. Senate committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions heard from mine safety advocates Wednesday about ways to make mines safer and help those who develop black lung disease get the health care and disability benefits that they deserve.

The hearing comes weeks after the Mine Safety and Health Administration issued a rule limiting the levels of silica dust allowed in operating mines and requiring mine operators to monitor for it. Silica dust exposure can lead to a particularly severe form of black lung disease

Testifiers said that while the rule was a positive step, Congress could do more to prevent future cases of black lung and ensure miners who do get sick can access health care and disability funds.

Dr. Drew Harris, the medical director of the largest black lung clinic at the University of Virginia, the largest such clinic in the country. He shared the story of one of his patients, whom he referred to simply as Paul.

Paul worked in a mine for eight years until a roof collapse rendered him unable to continue mining. Years later, he began having trouble breathing and was shortly diagnosed with black lung.

"He applied three times for black lung benefits, but was denied benefits each time," Harris said.

According to Harris and other testifiers, Paul's story is not unique. It took several years of battling for them, but Paul ultimately did get benefits, which include a monthly stipend and health care.

"The black lung benefit system as currently designed now does not work for miners like Paul," Harris said.

In many cases, sick miners struggle to get legal representation when appealing a denial of black lung benefits. And it can be difficult to prove that the disease is severe enough to qualify for those benefits, especially with so few doctors in the rural areas where the disease is most common, with doctors who specialize in the disease in short supply. 

According to other testifiers, miners who are denied benefits often face challenges from well-heeled coal companies who employ attorneys to fight their claims, and are financially disincentivized from helping them.

"A coal miner who is sick and can't work is trying to get benefits against an attorney who is making $400,000 a year," said Cecil Roberts, President of the United Mine Workers Association and a former miner. "They have access to doctors from all over the United States, and that coal miner doesn't have that."

Roberts also noted that attorneys specializing in appealing denials of black lung benefits can be hard to find.

Mine safety advocates agree new silica dust rule is progress, but some worry it's not enough

Moreover, according to lawmakers and testifiers, federal funds for disabled miners are proving insufficient. Typically, mine operators and their insurance companies are responsible for paying disability funds when a miner contracts black lung. But when mine operators are unable to pay for reasons like bankruptcy, the tab falls to the federally operated Black Lung Disability Trust Fund.

"This fund has been grossly mismanaged, where its total liabilities exceeded its assets by billions of dollars,"  said Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.). "It's no good. It's not going to be there for the people who need it."

Cindy Brown Barnes is the managing director of the Government Accountability Office's Education, Workforce and Income Security team. She testified that an increase in the number of young miners contracting black lung disease, a large number of coal company bankruptcies and a long history of borrowing money have left the fund straining at the seams.

"The trust fund has serious financial challenges," Barnes said. "Based on the Department of Labor's projection, the trust debt could exceed $13 billion by 2050." 

One proposal to alleviate some of these issues is a bill put forward by committee member Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) known as the Black Lung Benefit Improvement Act. Testifiers urged its passing.

The bill would require better imaging for miners, which, according to Harris, would make diagnosis of black lung disease easier and more difficult to dispute. It would also raise sick miners' monthly stipends in line with inflation, provide miners with attorneys fees when their cases hit certain benchmarks, ban lawyers representing coal companies from withholding information that may help miners secure their claims and require the Department of Labor to come up with a way to address the backlog of claims.

"My bill will ensure that every coal miner who is suffering from black lung disease receives the benefits that they and their families are entitled to," Casey said in a statement Wednesday. "With the most serious black lung cases still on the rise, we owe it to our miners to make damn sure they get the care and benefits they've earned."

Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) is a co-sponsor of Casey's bill, and Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) has introduced a similar bill in the House. Neither bill has been taken up in committee yet.

Roberts also recommended lawmakers codify the new silica dust rules into law.

"If we have a change in leadership at MSHA or Secretary of Labor, we might see this rule changed and we'll be right back where we were," Roberts said. "If it's a good rule it certainly should be a good law."

Poll Finds Support For Low Emission Zones Growing In Scotland

Support for the introduction of low emission zones (LEZs) in Scotland has seen an increase, according to a recent poll.

These zones aim to reduce pollution by penalising drivers of older, more polluting vehicles such as cars, buses, taxis, and motorcycles when they enter certain city areas.

The survey, carried out by Opinion Matters and involving 1,000 Scottish participants, indicates that 60% are in favour of LEZs, a rise from 53% the previous year.

READ MORE: How to get ID to vote in the General Election 2024 and what is accepted

READ MORE: Aberdeen researchers develop soft 'robo arm' that could aid stroke recovery

Additionally, opposition to LEZs has decreased to 21%, down from 23% in 2023, as per the findings from the March poll.

Asthma + Lung UK Scotland, a health charity that commissioned the survey, has praised the establishment of LEZs in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, and Glasgow.

Gareth Brown, chairman of Healthy Air Scotland and policy and public affairs officer at Asthma + Lung UK Scotland, commented on the dangers of air pollution, stating: "Air pollution from cars contain dangerous toxins such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter."

He also highlighted the financial and health impacts of air pollution, which costs Scotland £1.1 billion annually, burdens the healthcare system, and contributes to over 2,700 premature deaths each year.

Brown further emphasised the significance for those with lung conditions, noting: "With one in five Scots developing a lung condition like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in their lifetime, for them, air pollution can trigger life-threatening asthma attacks and flare-ups."

"Children are more susceptible to air pollution as their lungs are still growing, and they also breathe faster than adults. As they grow, toxic air can stunt the growth of their lungs, making them less resilient into adulthood and placing them at greater risk of lung disease in the future."

"We want to see politicians from all parties coming together to tackle air pollution and encourage behavioural change. With greater investment in public transport and active travel, and exemptions for the most vulnerable, we want to see our cities to be far healthier places, where people aren't exposed to unhealthy air."

"Traffic reduction policies like LEZs are seen as the most effective tool, but we would like to see policies that go further, helping to clear up pollution hotspots throughout the country, not just in our four main cities."

"It is vitally important that we protect the lungs and health of our communities, no-one should be forced to breathe in toxic air."

Transport Secretary Fiona Hyslop stated: "It's encouraging to see growing support for LEZs, which are designed to protect public health by improving air quality."

"Cities around the world have been implementing LEZs in response to continued scientific findings into the effects of air pollution caused predominantly by vehicle emissions."

"The support from public health charities such as Asthma + Lung UK is welcomed by the Scottish Government and local authorities and they are right that LEZs cannot work in isolation."

"Beyond the full enforcement of Scotland's LEZs by June 1, we're continuing to invest over £2 billion a year on public transport, delivering ambitious policies such as free bus travel for the under-22s, the extension of the peak fares pilot for rail travel and continued investment in active travel to make walking, wheeling and cycling easier for more people."

"By encouraging a shift away from cars and towards sustainable transport, we make our city centres better places to live, work in and visit while at the same time protecting public health and the climate."

---