I have finally got round to reading an interesting book called "RSI and the
experts: the construction of medical knowledge" by Hilary Arksey. I hope
she will not mind if I quote a rather long passage from the book. I found
it quite enlightening and thought perhaps others on the list would too.

"...the Australian Government won a significant victory in March 1987
when a Victorian Supreme Court jury found in favour of Susan Cooper's
employers, the Taxation Office in Melbourne. Shortly after the verdict, a
judge gave approval for confidential legal advice to be published, advice
which set out expert recommendations in respect of the tactics the
Government ought to pursue when contesting claims for RSI damages....
In essence, the lawyers 'advised that the Government case should seek
to create the impression that RSI [was] caused by mass hysteria'....
Furthermore, they proposed that 'every attempt be made to colour the
defence to allege a strong psychological component in the plaintiff's
complaints'....

"What is especially interesting...is what the legal advisors had to say with
regard to expert opinion and the selection of 'appropriate' expert
witnesses -- witnesses who in essence had to support the view that RSI
was psychologically based. In the event, five British experts were
interviewed: two (an ergonomics specialist from Loughborough University
of Technology, and an HSE officer) were recommended as suitable
Government witnesses, but three (two from Loughborough again; the
third, the head of engineering at Birmingham University) did not meet the
necessary parameters. The paradox was that one of those 'ruled out'
was at the same me 'ruled in' in the sense that it was suggested he be
'silenced' by paying him a retainer if need be to prevent him giving
evidence on behalf of Cooper....

"It is clear that advisors working for the Australian Government went to
great lengths and expense (they trawled both Europe and North America)
to seek out expertise. But the expertise they were looking for had to
accord with how the Government intended to interpret to RSI. To this
end, the lawyers needed a particular type of knowledge: one which
constructed RSI-type disorders as a type of hysteria. And in the sense
that the jury accepted the Government's case they were successful in
their endeavours.... What this example goes to show is the extent to
which politics was being practised: a particular knowledge was being
(re)shaped and packaged for, in the particular case, legal
consumption...."

I hadn't realized that there had been an orchestrated plan to try to
characterize RSI as "psychological". Although it took place in Australia,
no doubt it influenced the thinking (and the legal tactics) in other
countries also. I wonder whether the GPs who dismiss RSI as
psychological would be so comfortable with that argument if they knew
that it had all been set up by a passel of lawyers!

The ISBN for the book is 1-85728-813-0 and it was published in 1998. I
got it through Inter Library Loans. The source for the secondary quotes
is given as Crawford, A., "Australian government advised to silence
British expert", _Health and Safety at Work_, August, pp.31-3.

Regards,
Ellen



*******************************************************************
Unsubscribing: send a blank e-mail to [email protected]

FAQ: http://www.rsi-uk.org.uk/faq.txt
Archives: http://www.rsi-uk.org.uk/archive
RSI-UK website: http://www.rsi-uk.org.uk
List Owner: [email protected]
********************************************************************

Search Facility developed by : Loud-n-Clear Ltd