Journal Articles

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/7915

Browse

Filters

2020 - 20232

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Pillay MSubject: search.filters.subject.Human Rights

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Questions of suitability: The Sustainable Development Goals.
    (Taylor and Francis Group, 2023-02-16) Pillay M; Quigan E; Kathard H
    PURPOSE: To stimulate critical thought, to challenge how speech-language pathologists (SLPs) achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in supporting people with swallowing/communication disabilities, using a critical, political conscientisation approach. RESULT: We generate data from our professional and personal experiences interpreted through a decolonial lens to demonstrate how Eurocentric attitudes and practices are at the core of SLPs' knowledge base. We highlight risks associated with SLPs' uncritical use of human rights, the bases of the SDGs. CONCLUSION: While SDGs are useful, SLPs should take the first steps of becoming politically conscientised to consider whiteness, to ensure that deimperialisation and decolonisation are tightly woven into our sustainable development work. This commentary paper focusses on the SDGs a whole.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A critical analysis of the current South African occupational health law and hearing loss
    (AOSIS, 2020-03-24) Manning WG; Pillay M
    Background: Occupational health laws must recognise the constitutional requirement of substantive equality, and its role in ‘the progressive realisation’ of the rights provided by Section 27. Objectives: Our main aim is to review current South African occupational health law (vis-à-vis workers’ constitutional rights) in relation to hearing loss. We focus on gaps in the law regarding occupational hearing loss in South Africa. Method: Our review of legal texts relies on experience as a methodological device augmented by the use of a critical science. Guided by literature or evidence synthesis methodologies, South African primary and secondary laws were reviewed along with unpublished (non-peer-reviewed) grey literature. An established six-step framework guided our thematic analysis. A semantic approach aided the critical interpretation of data using the Bill of Rights as a core analytical framework. Results: Four themes are discussed: (1) separate and unequal regulatory frameworks; (2) monologic foregrounding of noise; (3) minimisation of vestibular disorders; and (4) dilution of ototoxic agents. The highly divided legal framework of occupational health and safety in South Africa perpetuates a monologic ‘excessive noise-hearing loss’ paradigm that has implications for the rights of all workers to equal protections and benefits. There is a need to harmonise occupational health and safety law, and expand the scope of hearing-protection legislation to include the full range of established ototoxic hazards. Conclusion: Occupational audiology is dominated by efforts to address noise-induced hearing loss. A ‘noise’ despite the reality of workers’ exposures to a range of ototoxic stressors that act synergistically on the ear, resulting in audio-vestibular disorders.