Occupational demand and human rights. Public safety officers and cardiorespiratory fitness.

The issue of discrimination in physically demanding employment, such as police, firefighters, prison guards and military personnel, is contentious. In terms of oxygen transport, the 'action limit' (calling for personnel selection or task redesign) is a steady oxygen consumption of 0.7 L/min, while the maximum permissible limit is 2.1 L/min. Note is taken of the commonly expressed belief that public safety duties are physically demanding, calling for personnel with an aerobic power of at least 3 L/min, or 42 to 45 ml/kg/min. The actual demands of such work can be assessed on small samples by physiological measurements (using heart rate or oxygen consumption meters), but the periods sampled may not be typical of a normal day. A Gestalt can also be formed as to the heaviness of a given job, or a detailed task analysis can be performed; most such analyses of public safety work list distance running and other aerobic activities infrequently. An arbitrary requirement of 'above average fitness' is no longer accepted by courts, but a further approach is to examine the characteristics of those currently meeting the demands of public safety jobs satisfactorily. Young men commonly satisfy the 3 L/min standard, but this is not usually the case for women or older men; in the case of female employees, it also seems unreasonable that they should be expected to satisfy the same standards as men, since a lower body mass reduces the energy cost of most of the tasks that they must perform. A second criterion sometimes applied to physically demanding work (a low vulnerability to heart attacks) is examined critically. It is concluded that the chances that a symptom-free public safety officer will develop a heart attack during a critical solo mission are so low that cardiac risk should not be a condition of employment. Arbitrary age- and sex-related employment criteria are plainly discriminatory, since some women and 65-year-old men have higher levels of physical fitness than the average young man of 25 years. Neither laboratory nor field tests offer a satisfactory means of distinguishing such individuals, and the only equitable basis of selecting personnel for physically demanding work seems a probationary period of employment.