Occupational and Environmental Medicine 1995;52:781-784 Occupational medicine: the way ahead

Editor-Seaton and Agius are right.' Occupational medicine is too important to remain either a luxury optional extra, or an industrial and academic ghetto. Over two million people every year have ill health because of their work. More days of work are lost because of occupational asthma than strikes, and work related asbestos diseases are set to become the biggest single killer of adult men. Trade unions have in the past been accused of putting compensation before prevention. And certainly, the £335 million we win in damages for our members every year is an achievement of which we are proud. These people deserve recompense for their suffering. But the TUC wants to see far more emphasis on prevention. That is why we are appalled at the way Government cuts continue to sap the strength of the Health and Safety Executive's Employment Medical Advisory Service. That is also why we think that workers should have the legal right of access to an occupational health service. Ideology should play no part in the delivery of such a right: we do not mind whether the service is part of the NHS, offered directly by the employer, or bought in from the private sector. In practice, it is bound to be a mixture of all three. We think that this sort of approach would benefit both workers and their employers, because a healthy workforce is a competitive workforce. And it will take an alliance of both sides of industry, as well as practitioners, to