Health and Safety Requirements? Yes! But To What Degree?

A woman is pulled from near the Center Street dam by construction worker Jason Oglesbee on Tuesday. A man who was with the unidentified woman died in the Des Moines River. A rescue team from the Des Moines Fire Department tried several times to rescue the woman but could not get close enough to her. (Andrea Melendez/The Register)

Is it always true that if a job cannot be done safely it is not worth doing? After viewing the photo above, what do you think?

With Health and Safety increasingly being pushed to the forefront in the Environmental field and other industries, this photo brings to mind a question I have heard many times from front line workers. These workers can regularly be seen donning hard hats, safety vests, safety glasses, etc. and can be seen working in all types of environments as part of their everyday jobs.

Where does Health and Safety become too burdensome? Where does strict adherence to mandated Health and Safety requirements cross the line between protecting workers and over-indulgence?

I do not have all the facts, but consider this inspiring rescue as a case in point:

Woman Pulled from Des Moines River

Firefighters were not able to get close enough to effect a rescue of this 60 year old lady who is stuck in turbulent waters at the bottom of a dam. Yet, they stand by as a construction worker (with a harness and preserver, but in clear disregard for most other PPE and procedures) gets hoisted by a crane over to the lady who is constantly getting pulled under the rushing water. The worker pulls the woman to safety.

The guy is a hero and his courage inspiring, wouldn't we all agree?

Yet, I wonder why firefighters were not the ones that were put out on the crane? Most likely it violated their established procedures. When that happens they can be sued, lose their jobs and be subject to any number of other consequences.

This logic leads me to conclude that it is worse for rescue workers to violate safety procedures than to try an emergency rescue via use of the crane.

Now, I believe there were likely a number of rescue personnel who would have volunteered to do what this construction worker did. But for whatever reason, they didn't. I can only surmise they did not effect the rescue because they did not have the method approved, the job safety analysis complete, the equipment inspected or the city insurance rider in place for the crane company.

Most of us are not in the rescue business, but we are encouraged to act safely at home as we do on the job. We make it a lifestyle so we are always thinking safety first. This reduces our risk.

If this construction worker acted the way we are all taught, the lady would likely have drowned with highly trained rescue personnel watching helplessly at a safe distance away.

Off the record, what do you think? As they can be mutually exclusive (as evidenced by the above situation), is strict adherence to Health and Safety about saving lives or saving something else?