Bioethical Challenges in Determining Work Eligibility: Between Autonomy and Occupational Risk

Tantangan Bioetika dalam Penentuan Kelayakan Bekerja: Antara Otonomi dan Risiko Okupasi

Authors

  • Noer Triyanto Rusli Universitas Indo Global Mandiri

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30649/jhek.v5i1.250

Keywords:

Bioethics, Fitness for work, Occupational medicine, Justice, Conflict of Interest

Abstract

Fitness-for-work assessment is one of the core responsibilities in occupational medicine, particularly when dealing with workers experiencing health problems. This process requires not only accurate clinical judgment but also involves complex bioethical dimensions. This article aims to analyze the bioethical challenges faced by occupational physicians in determining fitness for work, with emphasis on the principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and conflicts of interest. This study employs a qualitative approach through a systematic literature review and case reflections, complemented by semi-structured interviews with fifteen occupational health practitioners and human resource managers from the logistics, mining, and manufacturing sectors in Indonesia, conducted between January and May 2025. Data were analyzed thematically using a clinical bioethics framework. The findings reveal that medical decisions in this context often conflict with socio-economic pressures, productivity demands, and the limitations of Indonesia’s labor system. Power imbalances between employers and workers, low health literacy, and weak legal protection for medical professionals further exacerbate ethical dilemmas. Therefore, a multidisciplinary and systemic approach is needed—one that integrates ethical values into labor policy, occupational health training, and organizational governance. Fitness-for-work assessments should not merely serve as administrative procedures but must uphold justice, protect workers’ dignity, and reinforce the integrity of the medical profession.

References

Buku :

Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/principles-of-biomedical-ethics-9780190640873

Peter, A. (2019). Etika profesi kedokteran di tempat kerja. Jakarta: Gramedia.

Simanjuntak, R. (2015). Dilema etik dalam praktik kedokteran kerja. Bandung: Refika Aditama.

Siregar, D. (2018). Mental health and work: Ethical dilemmas in Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.

Tambunan, L. (2017). Diskriminasi dalam dunia kerja: Perspektif gender dan disabilitas. Jakarta: Komnas HAM.

Jurnal :

Nugroho, B. (2020). Penerapan etika bio-medis dalam penanganan kasus pekerja sakit. Jurnal Bioetika dan Hukum Kesehatan, 5(1), 25–36.

Persad, G., Emanuel, E. J., & Wertheimer, A. (2020). Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. The Lancet, 373(9661), 423–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60137-9

Rantanen, J. (2019). Ethics in occupational health: Application of ethical principles in health surveillance and research. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 45(3), 343–350. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3828

Wulandari, E. (2023). Bioetika dalam penilaian kelayakan bekerja: Kajian literatur sistematis. Jurnal Bioetika dan Profesi Kesehatan, 9(1), 1–13.

Yulianti, N. (2020). Penilaian kelayakan kerja: Perspektif etika profesi. Jurnal Etika Kedokteran Indonesia, 6(2), 115–129.

Zulkarnain, M. (2022). Intervensi rehabilitasi kerja di Indonesia: Antara realitas dan harapan. Jurnal Kedokteran Kerja, 8(1), 43–58.

Laporan/Organisasi Internasional :

International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH). (2018). International code of ethics for occupational health professionals (3rd ed.). Helsinki: ICOH. https://www.icohweb.org/site/multimedia/code_of_ethics/code-of-ethics-en.pdf

International Labour Organization (ILO). (2019). The future of work in Asia and the Pacific: Embracing technology, balancing demographic challenges, and enhancing job quality. Geneva: ILO. https://www.ilo.org/resource/future-work-0

International Labour Organization (ILO). (2022). World social protection report 2021–2022: Social protection at the crossroads – In pursuit of a better future. Geneva: ILO. https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/%40ed_protect/%40soc_sec/documents/publication/wcms_817572.pdf

World Bank. (2020). Social protection and jobs responses to COVID-19: A real-time review of country measures. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/socialprotection/publication/social-protection-and-jobs-responses-to-covid-19

World Health Organization (WHO). (2021). Guidelines on mental health at work. Geneva: WHO. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240053052

World Health Organization (WHO) & International Labour Organization (ILO). (2019). Healthy workplaces: A model for action. Geneva: WHO Press. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241599313

Peraturan / Etika Profesi Nasional

KODEKI. (2012). Kode etik kedokteran Indonesia. Jakarta: Majelis Kehormatan Etik Kedokteran, IDI.

Published

2025-08-28

How to Cite

Rusli, N. T. (2025). Bioethical Challenges in Determining Work Eligibility: Between Autonomy and Occupational Risk: Tantangan Bioetika dalam Penentuan Kelayakan Bekerja: Antara Otonomi dan Risiko Okupasi. Jurnal Hukum Dan Etika Kesehatan, 5(1), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.30649/jhek.v5i1.250

Issue

Section

Articles