Hospital will not hire smokers

Nurses Professionalism

Published

2 hours ago, not.done.yet said:

The ban on nicotine has more to do with the American system of medical insurance and the fact that it increases the cost of insuring all employees, not just the nicotine addicts. As such, all the nonsmokers are basically subsidizing the increase in healthcare costs for the smokers, as is the facility itself for its portion of the premium. Yes, there are similarities between that and obesity and other bad habits, but this is the one they are tackling for now and this is the topic at hand. It isn't about the nicotine. Its about what it is costing the facility to insure those addicted to nicotine. The more smokers/dippers/chewers/vapers there are on the plan, the more the insurance company charges to insure everyone on the plan.

There is zero denying smokers increase healthcare costs. So do diabetics and cancer patients and those with obesity yada yada. Smoking is pretty easy to nail down as a habit that can be changed and is pretty straight forward. The others not as much.

Evidently It is not straight forward for smoker, cause current methods group nonsmokers with smokers. I am a nonsmoker, but I do use nicotine. Big difference between a smoker and an individual whom uses nicotine. Smoking is a serious health issue, but nicotine in itself is not nearly as destructive. My issue is with the wide brush being used to paint all nicotine users as "smokers." Its presumptive and causes inaccurate discrimination.

Your right, it's all on the insurance companies and the lack of oversight by state and federal government, hence why other states have taken action. We allow them to make non-evidence base policies and allow them to discriminate, penalize and dictate whom a company can hire through coercion (monetary coercion).

Smoking and chewing tobacco cause increase health costs, agreed. I do not see how nicotine use in itself does. They need to pull these discriminatory practices till they can develop a test for smoking. Out of 2000 plus chemicals I find it hard to believe they can only find a test for 1 (nicotine).

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Parkinson's, stroke. elderly care rehab.

Please bear in mind that our UK 'free at the point of delivery' healthcare service does not mean we are a Communist state. It is about looking out for each other.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Parkinson's, stroke. elderly care rehab.

Testing for chemicals:

I have had bit of experience dealing with people working on building sites in the UK. Employers conduct random tests which can detect a rather large selection of drug use, and over the years, they can date traces back to 90 days or more. Nicotine as a sole marker? Oh come on...

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care; Cardiac; Professional Development.
19 hours ago, Jakehose said:

Evidently It is not straight forward for smoker, cause current methods group nonsmokers with smokers. I am a nonsmoker, but I do use nicotine. Big difference between a smoker and an individual whom uses nicotine. Smoking is a serious health issue, but nicotine in itself is not nearly as destructive. My issue is with the wide brush being used to paint all nicotine users as "smokers." Its presumptive and causes inaccurate discrimination.

Your right, it's all on the insurance companies and the lack of oversight by state and federal government, hence why other states have taken action. We allow them to make non-evidence base policies and allow them to discriminate, penalize and dictate whom a company can hire through coercion (monetary coercion).

Smoking and chewing tobacco cause increase health costs, agreed. I do not see how nicotine use in itself does. They need to pull these discriminatory practices till they can develop a test for smoking. Out of 2000 plus chemicals I find it hard to believe they can only find a test for 1 (nicotine).

Is there a way to use nicotine that does not impact health outcomes? I suppose a patch or gum maybe. Vaping is now being shown to cause serious and sudden lung disease.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
50 minutes ago, not.done.yet said:

Is there a way to use nicotine that does not impact health outcomes? I suppose a patch or gum maybe. Vaping is now being shown to cause serious and sudden lung disease.

These cases are being linked to black market products, specifically marijuana vape cartridges. I only use products from a reputable vape shop.

But you kinda outlined my point. Even if I switched to gum or a patch, I would still be refused employment.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care; Cardiac; Professional Development.
55 minutes ago, Jakehose said:

These cases are being linked to black market products, specifically marijuana vape cartridges. I only use products from a reputable vape shop.

But you kinda outlined my point. Even if I switched to gum or a patch, I would still be refused employment.

Well yeah, but...the goal of those products is to wean yourself off nicotine. Theoretically you would be using them with the goal of quitting. What would be the point of chewing nasty gum or keeping a nicotine patch on?

I would love to see the data coming out re: black market and vapes. Do you have any sources? Not asking to be argumentative. A lot of my work is in population health and I have not seen anything in that realm as yet.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
22 minutes ago, not.done.yet said:

Well yeah, but...the goal of those products is to wean yourself off nicotine. Theoretically you would be using them with the goal of quitting. What would be the point of chewing nasty gum or keeping a nicotine patch on?

I would love to see the data coming out re: black market and vapes. Do you have any sources? Not asking to be argumentative. A lot of my work is in population health and I have not seen anything in that realm as yet.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
20 minutes ago, Jakehose said:
47 minutes ago, not.done.yet said:

Well yeah, but...the goal of those products is to wean yourself off nicotine. Theoretically you would be using them with the goal of quitting. What would be the point of chewing nasty gum or keeping a nicotine patch on?

I would love to see the data coming out re: black market and vapes. Do you have any sources? Not asking to be argumentative. A lot of my work is in population health and I have not seen anything in that realm as yet.

I only use 3mg of nicotine (cigarettes have 18). I put it down from time to time, but in times of high stress or appropriate social events I reach for the vaporizer rather then the cigarettes (quit cigarettes in 2010).

Recent articles when read in their entirety point to black market thc vaporizer products. When creating vape cartridges (nicotine or thc) the base cannot be a lipid (search lipid pneumonia). THC is mixed with lipids for "oral" administration, not inhalation. Plus the growing of the marijuana product is not regulated to prevent contamination or pesticides when produced illegally.

Vaping has been around since around 1970. People have been vaping THC for over a decade. Marijuana has been smoked for longer than recorded history. We just now had this spurt of acute lung injuries, obviously there is a catalyst that was not there before.

These are the thing that prohibition pushes people to turn to. I'll keep saying it; education and over site, not prohibition.

All the meat recalls that occur, nobody blames the eating of meat. Because contamination is the culprit not the eating of meat.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/as-vaping-related-lung-illnesses-spike-investigators-eye-contaminants/2019/08/29/cfe26032-ca78-11e9-be05-f76ac4ec618c_story.html?noredirect=on

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2019/08/28/critics-cdc-silent-vaping-thc-injuries-mount/2121523001/

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care; Cardiac; Professional Development.

Unfortunately the Washington Post and USA Today and other media articles are not scholarly sources. The uptick in lung injuries is just as likely to be attributed to the dramatic increase in use as "contaminants" and will need to be studied in a scientific way to bear out any credibility one way or the other. Hopefully that is already happening. I will do a little research and report back here anything I find. Interesting discussion, to be sure.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
8 minutes ago, not.done.yet said:

Unfortunately the Washington Post and USA Today and other media articles are not scholarly sources. The uptick in lung injuries is just as likely to be attributed to the dramatic increase in use as "contaminants" and will need to be studied in a scientific way to bear out any credibility one way or the other. Hopefully that is already happening. I will do a little research and report back here anything I find. Interesting discussion, to be sure.

Agreed. They are not scientific sources, but at this point media is the only source of information about the current issue that is still being investigated. From that information though, we as scientists can focus our attention toward the products being implicated.

Very interesting conversation. Please let us know what you find.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Parkinson's, stroke. elderly care rehab.

To follow this thread:

I wish to make a plea. Every contributor has made pertinent comments, and I especially like the demands for evidence.

But it has become split; the question about nicotine is one thing. My son, a passionate anti-smoker, bought me the top of the range vape. That is for one thread.

The chief thing I'd like to see is a discussion about refusals to smokers' applications for nursing jobs. That. to me, is beyond stupid and needs to be challenged.

Please find a way out of this. As a UK nurse, I feel that it should be left to you lot to get talking about these issues separately.

Brian

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment