Last week, I participated in a research project sponsored by
the Pacific Alzheimer’s Research Foundation and Canadian Institute of Health
Research. It was conducted by the
Pacific Parkinson’s Research Centre at the Health Sciences Centre Hospital –
UBC. I don’t have Parkinson’s or
Alzheimer’s or other neurodegenerative disease (at least not yet) but believe
research is essential if we are to improve the diagnosis and treatment of
Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and related neurodegenerative disorders. As a subject in the study, I will not receive
any direct benefit but the knowledge gained from me and other participants may
benefit others.
The study employed a technique known as PET (Positron
Emission Tomography) scanning to determine the activity of brain nerve
cells. This involved the injection of a
substance labeled with a tiny amount of radioactive isotope with a very short
half-life. As the isotope decays, it emits
positrons. When a positron bumps into an electron, both are annihilated
releasing two gamma photons in opposite directions which are detected in the scanner. Three dimensional images of the brain can be
constructed from the data sets collected from the scanner.
I had two scans
during the course of the six hours I was at the hospital. Each scan involved my
head being placed in the scanner.
Keeping my head still for the hour or so for each scan was made easier
by a a very stylish custom-fitted mask.
Such studies are not cheap to run. The isotopes, technicians, medical staff
involved to get one set of readings from one test subject like me, not to
mention my occupying the very expensive PET scan for literally hours are
clearly cost intensive. The actual
research on the scans of all subjects involved, the analysis, peer review and
publication also carry significant costs. What could possibly justify the
cost? Well, to paraphrase a poster I
once saw, “If you think research is expensive—Try disability and disease!” Clearly, the human and financial costs of neurodegenerative
disorders are staggering and, by that measure, financial and personal
commitment to research is the far better and cheaper choice.
Linking that personal experience and position to the world
of workers’ compensation is not a huge leap.
We may not talk a lot about neurodegenerative disorders but just about
everyone knows someone with one such neurodegenerative disorder: Parkinson’s disease. High profile sufferers of this chronic
disorder include actor Michael J. Fox and fighter Mohamed Ali. They have helped put a face on the
characteristic and progressive tremors, stiffness, and slow movements that are
often the most visible signs of this disease.
Is Parkinson’s disease or Parkinsonism work-related? There
is a lot of evidence that certain work exposures are associated with an
increased risk for the development of Parkinsonism. There is evidence that chemicals in the work
environment may play a role in the development of the disease. Certain pesticides and organic solvents are clearly
implicated in the development of Parkinson’s and head trauma – as a result of a
work-related injury, for example—increases the risk of Parkinson’s
disease. Manganese exposure and heavy
metal exposure are also associated with the development of Parkinsonism.
As far as occupational risks are concerned, work on farms
and in gas stations or work as a welders and miners have been shown to have
statistically higher risks for the development of this disease.
In the US, the ASSE reports 10,000 lawsuits by welders who have developed
manganese-induced Parkinson’s disease .
I know of only a handful of workers’ compensation claims ever being
submitted for Parkinson’s disease or
Parkinsonism. Aside from a few cases
reported in the US press [like the 1996 win by a welder in the California Workers’
Compensation Appeal Board], few applications for workers’ compensation have
been accepted.
Why don’t we see more workers’ compensation claims for
Parkinson’s disease, Parkinsonism, and other potentially work-related neurodegenerative
disorders? The onset of the disease is
often diagnosed after work careers end.
Knowledge of the association between work and the disease may not be widely
known in the occupations at elevated risk.
Temporary foreign workers in agriculture, for example, may not fully
understand the risks they may be exposed to in applying pesticides; even if
they are aware of the risks, it is unlikely that a temporary foreign worker who
may have suffered exposure here will file a claim from their home country.
Will we see more workers’ compensation claims for neurodegenerative
diseases like Parkinson’s in the future?
I predict we will. As more
workers extend their work careers into their late sixties and beyond and as the
association between work, certain work-related traumas and increased risks of
occupational disease including Parkinson’s increase, we are going to see more
cases presented as work-related, exacerbated by work, recognized by diagnosticians as being
work-related, and ultimately presented for consideration of workers’
compensation benefits.