Absolutely. My suggestion would always be the last resort.
But, in fairness, the way the problem was presented it sure looked like the final position had been reached. I quote: "We have several staff members however, that have presented letters from their GPs stating that they have a medical issue and they need to be excused from wearing safety boots."
I admit, I am still amazed to hear of a medical doctor who sidelines as a cobbler.

Perhaps Steve, you and I read and or comprehend slightly differently. I understood that the doctor issued an "Exemption" from wearing safety boots. That didn't sound (to me) like a doctor's invitation to engage in the selection of safety boots. From Kathy's story I took the explanation that her firm had already gone through an extensive procedure to allow the staff initially to choose from a preferred range and then to another supplier to select from a wider range. Could we expect a doctor to do more than this? I think not. Of course the first line of attack must be to do everything "practicable" to fit each worker with suitable PPE. This has been done already. The next, unfortunate, step can be little else than to separate the worker from the hazard. Personally, I would rather take an enforced change in employment than to become disabled through a preventable work accident.

If your worker is injured because they are not wearing safety shoes when the wearing of them would have prevented the injury, THEY ARE STILL GOING TO BE OFF WORK because you, their employer exposed them to the hazard. Harsh or not; If they cannot wear proscribed safety footwear or any PPE, then you must be considered negligent if you leave them in an area of risk. If you cannot remove or lessen the risk with protection, remove the person from the risk. To quote many a Mother; "You may sometimes have to be cruel to be kind.

Take a look at the procedure used by the NZ Army (and probably the other two services also). In accepted military notation the required pre-start-up check is referred to as the "First Parade". Extra checks are called "Halt Parade". Each vehicle has a check list for ticking off and a document for initialling to show compliance.

Notwithstanding any ratio by regulation, I believe the most important factor is that every worker/ staff member confidentially feels that they are personally represented on the H&S Committee and by a Representative that they relate to and who knows their particular job and their part in the structure of the organisation.

At the time (early 1980s) when I was National Secretary of NZ Institute of Safety Management, I was concurrently, National Secretary of the Affiliation of Railway St John Ambulance Divisions and Secretary of the National Committee for Mensa New Zealand.
Of the various industrial accidents I endured over the years, one of the most interesting (and painful) was being stung by a Scorpion while serving with the NZ Army in a Fijian jungle.

Even Lawn Bowling Clubs are being plagued by myths. There are claims aplenty that "the Safety industry" makes rules that the clubs must do certain things or risk massive fines. The things include such rules as removing rink markers from the banks around the greens, banning the drive [a fast bowl aimed at clearing out other bowls], stopping bowlers from sitting on the greens banks, etc. The common reaction to these "rules" is for bowlers to rant and rave about the way bureaucrats are trying to control the sport and every part of our lives. Then they start implementing the rules without checking their validity.

The most disturbing aspect of this that I find is the way that the report (or the heading at least) put the "blame" for the ruling once again onto the safety industry. It read as if some safety bureaucrat had made a directive to reverse the onions. Because of the numerous examples of previous misreports fed to and swallowed by the reasonable sensible public the story was added to the pile of evidence that tries to show the brainlessness of us in the field of safety.