“WHITE FINGERS” MALADY

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27669, 27 May 1955, Page 8

“WHITE FINGERS” MALADY

Possible Links With Sufferers’ Work BRITISH INDUSTRIAL INVESTIGATION The question whether Raynaud’s phenomenon should be classified as a “prescribed disease” within the meaning of Britain’s National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act caused a divergence of opinion recently among members of the ndustrial Injuries Advisory Council. Raynaud’s phenomenon is popularly known in Britain as “white fingers,” “dead fingers,” or “head hand ” It is a disturbance of the mechanism regulating blood flown in the extremities, resulting in intermittent pallor and numbness. “The precipitating factor in an attack,” says the council’s report on the investigation, “is usually exposure to cold. Raynaud’s phenomenon of constitutional origin occurs widely among the population at large, but it is generally accepted that the condition can also be caused by the use of certain high-frequency vibratory tools and by some other types of work which expose the hands to vibration.” The Industrial Medical Officer in Christchurch (Dr. A. Douglas), asked about the incidence of occupational Raynaud’s phenomenon in New Zealand, said that no cases had come to his notice. It was probable, though, that borne cases had been put down to causes other than the patient’s occupation. The occupations of about 60 cases mentioned in an article in a British medical journal, the “Lancet,”' varied widely and included sales clerks, housewives and unemployed, for instance, he said. Origin of Inquiry The British inquiry was prompted by the provisions of the National Insurance Act, under which a worker can claim a benefit for certain diseases caused by the nature of his employment. • The diseases for which he can claim are prescribed individually, and the advisory council asked a sub-committee to recommend whether, Raynaud’s phenomenon should be added to the list of prescribed diseases? After hearing evidence from the Trades Union Congress and other organisations and individuals, and reviewing Court decisions on the condition, the sub-committee of five presented a majority report recommending that Raynaud’s phenomenon should not be prescribed. “Any form of prescription of the condition would give rise to serious practical difficulties,” the majority report said. One member of the sub-committee submitted a minority report in which he said that in his opinion it should be prescribed for users of vibratory tools. The council of 17 members considered both reports and adopted the majority report; but five members of the council associated themselves with the minority report, and one medical member of the council submitted a dissenting note. In his opinion, his note said, the condition when caused by the use of vibratory tools should be a prescribed disease with the limitation that a claimant should not qualify for disablement benefit unless his loss of faculty exceeded 10 per cent.