Understand The Rationality Of The 48 Hour Work-Related Injury Regulations

According to media reports recently, a female worker in a factory in Shenzhen collapsed during the work and was rushed to hospital for emergency treatment.

After more than 48 hours of rescue time, the family was asked to die.

According to the provisions of the first paragraph of article tenth of the industrial injury insurance Ordinance of the Guangdong Province, the death of workers during the working hours and jobs, sudden death of diseases or death within forty-eight hours is regarded as work-related injury.

For this reason, the Shenzhen social security bureau did not identify the woman worker as a work-related injury.

In this case, most netizens think that the law is unreasonable. Is it because they want to identify work-related injuries and ask their families to give up the rescue within 48 hours? Indeed, there is some truth in the questioning of netizens. When any family member rescues their loved ones, they must seek doctors to do their best, and it is impossible to be rational.

However, why is there such a seemingly cold rule in law?

In fact, this is not the first time that such a thing has happened. A few years ago, there had been similar cases. It also led to widespread criticism of the "48 hours" rule. Many people advocated that such a vicious law should be abolished. But the result was that the rule remained unchanged. Why?

First of all, let's look at what we call "work-related injuries" without using obscure legal terms. Just as the name suggests, we can probably understand that the so-called work-related injury refers to the physical damage of workers during work.

When the police arrest suspects, they are injured by work-related injuries, and workers are injured when they work. It is work-related injuries even if they slip accidentally.

About the law of our country

The scope not only refers to accidents that happen when workers work, but also includes accidental injuries encountered by workers on their way to work.

So, objectively speaking,

The regulations on work-related injuries are reasonable.

There is, however, another thing that happens when working, like a female worker in Shenzhen.

The question here is whether her illness is caused by work. If it is occupational disease, it is undoubtedly the scope of work injury; if it is not an occupational disease, it is hard to say that it is work-related injury.

A person's body may be at any time when he has a disease, but some happen during work and some happen outside working hours.

However, the legislation on work-related injuries is originally based on the protection of workers' legitimate rights. Therefore, the law stipulates that even if it is not an occupational disease, it will be a work-related injury if it breaks out in the working hours and dies within 48 hours.

Therefore, legislation has fully taken into consideration the protection of labourers and tilted to the workers.

Injustice.

There is only one time problem here. Some people think that the 48 hour rule is too short. It is common to save more than 48 hours with current science and technology.

How many hours of rescue is invalid and death is calculated as a work-related injury. This question may not be answered by legislators. It may require medical professionals to give answers to medical science.

However, whether it is 48 hours, 72 hours or 96 hours, there will always be people who can not be identified as work-related injuries because of the rescue time beyond this period, and there will still be doubts about unfair legislation.

Therefore, we still can not make legislation reach the best level of everyone's satisfaction.

Because of this, although this legislation has been questioned, it can never be shaken.

Excluding the provisions of legislation on rescue time, there is another reason why netizens question the death of women workers in Shenzhen.

The woman had been killed by the doctor within 48 hours of rescue, but his family insisted on continuing the rescue, which lasted for more than 48 hours.

This involves a very important legal problem, that is, the standard of death. Now many medical experts believe that brain death is the standard of death, but the laws adopted by our country are comprehensive criteria, namely, respiratory arrest, cardiac arrest, pupil reflex function and so on.

In reality, the death time determined by doctors is very important in law.

Because in most cases of natural death, the requirements for death time are not so strict, so there is not much discussion. But in the case of women workers in Shenzhen, the time of death is very important, and people are more concerned about the identification of death standards.

Is it necessary for our country's laws to make the standards of death based on the development of medicine more scientific and reasonable?

On this issue, legal experts may not be able to exert themselves, or medical experts have the right to speak.