Discriminación en el empleo por motivos de religión o creencias

Memoria para optar al grado de Licenciada en Ciencias Jurídicas y SocialesLa religión o la creencia, para quienes la profesan, constituye uno de los elementos fundamentales de su concepción de la vida, un rasgo trascendental e intrínseco de su personalidad. Uno de los ámbitos en los cuales puede revelarse el vivir conforme a las propias creencias es el trabajo, donde confluyen la faceta de creyente y de trabajador y pueden presentarse conflictos entre la manifestación de la religión -a través de sus prácticas y observancias- y el poder de dirección del empleador. En este sentido, resulta relevante revisar el tema de la discriminación en el empleo por motivos de religión o de creencias, frente al mandato de la legislación laboral que prescribe que las relaciones laborales deberán siempre fundarse en un trato compatible con la dignidad de la persona. Si bien el legislador ha estimado a la religión y a las creencias como motivos respecto de los cuales pueden verificarse actos discriminatorios contrarios a los principios de las leyes laborales, y a la libertad religiosa dentro de uno de los derechos fundamentales respecto de los cuales puede invocarse el procedimiento de tutela laboral, la protección de este derecho se concentra más bien en la etapa post ocupacional. En este trabajo se revisará cómo se hace operativa la protección que la normativa vigente -en el derecho internacional, comparado y en Chile- ha establecido para el derecho a la no discriminación y el derecho a la libertad religiosa, en el lugar de empleo, con la finalidad de que los trabajadores no sean afectados por conductas discriminatorias basadas en la religión o las convicciones, y si es posible el reconocimiento del ejercicio de la libertad religiosa a través de garantías, es decir, si existe un derecho a comportarse en lo posible de acuerdo a las propias convicciones también en el lugar de trabaj

Global economic burden of unmet surgical need for appendicitis

Background There is a substantial gap in provision of adequate surgical care in many low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to identify the economic burden of unmet surgical need for the common condition of appendicitis. Methods Data on the incidence of appendicitis from 170 countries and two different approaches were used to estimate numbers of patients who do not receive surgery: as a fixed proportion of the total unmet surgical need per country (approach 1); and based on country income status (approach 2). Indirect costs with current levels of access and local quality, and those if quality were at the standards of high-income countries, were estimated. A human capital approach was applied, focusing on the economic burden resulting from premature death and absenteeism. Results Excess mortality was 4185 per 100 000 cases of appendicitis using approach 1 and 3448 per 100 000 using approach 2. The economic burden of continuing current levels of access and local quality was US $92 492 million using approach 1 and$73 141 million using approach 2. The economic burden of not providing surgical care to the standards of high-income countries was $95 004 million using approach 1 and$75 666 million using approach 2. The largest share of these costs resulted from premature death (97.7 per cent) and lack of access (97.0 per cent) in contrast to lack of quality. Conclusion For a comparatively non-complex emergency condition such as appendicitis, increasing access to care should be prioritized. Although improving quality of care should not be neglected, increasing provision of care at current standards could reduce societal costs substantially

Global economic burden of unmet surgical need for appendicitis

Background There is a substantial gap in provision of adequate surgical care in many low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to identify the economic burden of unmet surgical need for the common condition of appendicitis. Methods Data on the incidence of appendicitis from 170 countries and two different approaches were used to estimate numbers of patients who do not receive surgery: as a fixed proportion of the total unmet surgical need per country (approach 1); and based on country income status (approach 2). Indirect costs with current levels of access and local quality, and those if quality were at the standards of high-income countries, were estimated. A human capital approach was applied, focusing on the economic burden resulting from premature death and absenteeism. Results Excess mortality was 4185 per 100 000 cases of appendicitis using approach 1 and 3448 per 100 000 using approach 2. The economic burden of continuing current levels of access and local quality was US $92 492 million using approach 1 and$73 141 million using approach 2. The economic burden of not providing surgical care to the standards of high-income countries was $95 004 million using approach 1 and$75 666 million using approach 2. The largest share of these costs resulted from premature death (97.7 per cent) and lack of access (97.0 per cent) in contrast to lack of quality. Conclusion For a comparatively non-complex emergency condition such as appendicitis, increasing access to care should be prioritized. Although improving quality of care should not be neglected, increasing provision of care at current standards could reduce societal costs substantially