All Work Must Be Original In APA Format Cited ✓ Solved
All Work Must Be Original In Apa Format Cited And Will Be Submitted
All Work Must Be Original In Apa Format Cited And Will Be Submitted All work must be original, in APA format, cited, and submitted to Turnitin. Create an argument either in favor of or against the lawsuit filed by emergency workers at the World Trade Center after September 11, 2001, concerning their contracted illnesses during cleanup. Incorporate considerations such as the availability and use of respirator equipment, responsibility of contracting agencies to enforce PPE use, and duty requirements to work in affected areas.
Sample Paper For Above instruction
Introduction
The aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center was marked by urgent rescue and cleanup operations that exposed emergency workers to hazardous environmental conditions. In recognition of the health risks, many workers subsequently filed lawsuits alleging negligence and breach of duty by agencies responsible for their safety. This paper argues in favor of the lawsuit, emphasizing the importance of proper respiratory protection, the responsibilities of contracting agencies to enforce PPE use, and the ethical obligation to protect workers from preventable harm during hazardous cleanup operations.
Availability and Use of Respirator Equipment
The availability of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), particularly respirators, was crucial in safeguarding emergency responders from inhaling toxic dust and airborne contaminants. Studies indicate that after 9/11, although PPE was available, its use was inconsistent and sometimes inadequate due to shortages, lack of proper training, or perceived discomfort (Hwang et al., 2002). Emergency workers reported that respirators were often uncomfortable or difficult to wear for extended periods, leading some to forego their use (Kales et al., 2003). The failure to consistently utilize available respirators heightened the risk of developing respiratory illnesses such as asthma, chronic bronchitis, and other pulmonary conditions, which many workers later suffered from (Lippmann et al., 2006). Legally and ethically, employers and contracting agencies had a responsibility to ensure that PPE was not only accessible but also properly used, thus minimizing preventable health hazards.
Failure to Use Respirator Equipment
Some evidence suggests that despite the availability of respirator equipment, its use was not adequately enforced or monitored. Workers often faced pressure to continue working in hazardous areas despite discomfort or health risks, and there was a culture of normalization of overexposure (Cummings et al., 2003). Failures in enforcement and oversight meant that workers were exposed to unsafe environments, increasing the likelihood of long-term health consequences. Ignoring or undervaluing the importance of proper PPE use constitutes negligence as it neglects the employer's duty to provide a safe working environment. The failure to enforce respiratory protection protocols was a breach of the principles of occupational health and safety, which prioritize injury and illness prevention.
Responsibility of Contracting Agencies to Enforce PPE Use
Contracting agencies, including government entities, bore a significant responsibility to enforce safety protocols, including PPE use, during the cleanup efforts. OSHA regulations mandate that employers must provide appropriate PPE and ensure its proper use (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2001). The agencies involved in the rescue and cleanup operations had a duty to supervise compliance and rectify violations promptly. Evidence indicates lapses in enforcement, likely driven by the urgency of the situation and resource constraints, contributed to increased health risks among responders (Alexander et al., 2004). The absence of strict enforcement reflects negligence in duty of care, justifying the workers' lawsuits for damages stemming from preventable illnesses.
Duty Requirements to Work in Affected Areas
The duty to protect workers from known hazards is fundamental within occupational health ethics. Employers and contracting agencies should have recognized the risks associated with airborne dust and toxic substances at Ground Zero (Levy et al., 2004). Ethical considerations demand that agencies take proactive measures—such as providing adequate PPE, enforcing its use, and rotating personnel—to safeguard health. Working in a contaminated environment without proper protection constitutes a breach of this duty, especially when workers were not fully informed of the risks or lacked the means to protect themselves effectively. The failure to uphold these duty requirements underscores the rationale for the workers' legal action.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the lawsuit filed by emergency workers against contracting agencies is justified based on their failure to ensure proper PPE availability and enforced usage, their negligence in overseeing health and safety protocols, and their breach of duty to protect workers from harm. The health consequences faced by responders highlight systemic failures that could have been mitigated through diligent enforcement of occupational safety standards. Recognizing these failures affirms the importance of holding responsible parties accountable to prevent future occupational health tragedies.