Pollution of operating departments by anaesthetic gases

P. Tomlin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1977.tb10010.x

IF: 12.893

1977-06-01

Anaesthesia

Abstract:A critique of HC(76)38 In July 1976 the Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS) published HC(76)38 entitled 'Pollution in operating departments, etc. by waste anaesthetic gases'. It purports to inform staff as to the current evidence of the hazards of pollution and instructs hospitals to reduce the level of pollution. It must be a matter of regret that the document does not warn staff of all the current evidence of the hazards or potential hazards. There is now ample data, based not only on retrospective studies but also ongoing measurements and experiments that there are quite a number of potential hazards resulting from pollution. These are abortion, teratogenicity,14 p r e m a t ~ r i t y , ~ , ~ cancer not only to ~ t a f f , 4 * ~ l ~ but also to children of staff," biochemical changes in staff suggestive of organ dysfunction,'* and possible loss of intellectual performance or even suicide. 2-14 Experimentally it has been shown that anaesthetics interfere with cell division,ls,l6 and this effect is dose related.17 The teratogenic studies have used anaesthetics in the clinical dose range and conse quently the yield of congenital abnormalities has been high, whereas the evidence from the surveys has shown that the congenital abnormality, abortion and possibly the cancer hazard are all between x 2 and x 3 that expected by chance. Cancer, particularly reticulo-endothelial cancer, leukaemia and cancer of the breast, has been reported. The only published prospective study has failed to justify 'the withdrawal of the previous claim' that there is an excess cancer incidence among those occupationally exposed to the anaesthetic gases. However, it is the observation of four primary cancersl0 arising in three children from a total of 695 children born to female anaesthetists that is particularly worrying. Cancer in children is a very rare phenomenon and the expected number should, at the very most, have been one. A number of inhalational anaesthetics are Mown carcinogen^.^.^ It is a major weakness of HC(76)38 that no guidance is given so that doctors responsible for the health of staff, or who are asked for advice at least know what to look for or what counsel to give. The only hazard that the document accepts is that of abortion. Surely it would have been more responsible for the Department at least to alert staff to the possibility that these other identified hazards could exist, even if subsequent investigation should later disprove them, rather than to allow staff to remain in ignorance only perhaps later to suffer unnecessarily. Not everyone accepts that pollution by waste anaesthetic gases creates a health hazard but 'the onus of proof lies in demonstrating its innocence'.lp Strikingly, evidence of innocence has been lacking. Criticisms may be made that much of the human evidence is based on retrospective studies-as many of the survey authors acknowledge. As far as man is concerned this is the best evidence we have or are likely to have and one normally makes a judgement of the evidence available. To undertake a prospective study and perhaps deliberately risk inflicting ill health on members of staff without any compensatory benefit to justify the risk would seem somewhat unethical. In this connection the earliest reports of smoking and lung cancer were based on retrospective surveys and who would doubt the validity of that association. It is apparent that a rq jor consideration in the preparation of HC(76)38 has been to avoid creating alarm among staff. This paternalistic approach would imply that staff are not capable of making their own judgement and ignores the fact that staff have ready access to experts who can apprise them in detail of the relative strength of the various parts of the evidence. Senior anaesthetists given a bibliography would know how to find the data and are presumably capable of evaluating that data and so giving an informed opinion of this if asked. Offering staff the evidence does not necessarily imply that all the evidence is indisputable proven fact but at least would allow staff to decide for themselves whether they want to wait for uncontrovertible proof before taking action to protect themselves. Other Governments appear to take the pollution hazard more seriously. In East Germany staff are permitted to work only 25 hours per week in the operating departments-even when pollution control system are installed. They have a scheme of maximum permitted exposure loads and staff receive financial compensation. In Russiathere has also been a suggestion of financial compensation.20