Should lifestyle discrimination be legal ? With the rising cost of healthcare, companies are looking for ways to save money. Across the US, many companies, including hospitals, are refusing to hire employees who's lifestyle is deemed to be high risk.
Users of tobacco, though perfectly legal, are being told that they aren't entitled to have a job because they smoke or chew tobacco. And many supporters of this new type of discrimination are living very high risk lifestyles themselves. Although they may not yet be aware, companies know when they've stumbled on to something that increases their profits. Eventually, many other groups will be added to the list of unacceptable lifestyles, including those who are over-weight, drink alcohol, poor eating habits, etc. And with advancements in genetic testing and lifestyle screening, the practice of refusing to hire, refusing to insure, or denying many of the opportunities that were once equally available to all, might very well be the way of things to come in America.
How bad does the discrimination have to get before people will begin to recognize it for what it truly is, and take action to stop it?
Do I think religion can be changed? This is where we acknowledge that as an atheist, I am not the right person to ask for a personal opinion on that matter. Religion is a legally protected class. To my understanding, religion is not considered a malleable personality characteristic, but something sacrosanct. Rationally, I cannot even begin to grasp that concept, but I accept it for what it is. But that was not a serious question in the first place, was it?
Obesity is not a legally protected class, nor should it be. There have been legions of studies supporting the hypothesis that more attractive candidates are hired and promoted faster and earn more money than less attractive candidates. Since obesity is not considered an attractive physical attribute in our culture, it stands to reason obese people would suffer the same unfortunate bias as other applicants deemed less attractive. This is neither new nor surprising. The interesting point is that if obesity is the only or the major disadvantage a candidate is facing, it is so easily addressed that it could be a non-issue for many within just a few months time.
A lof less time than it would take to convert to a new Religion or go through gender reassignment surgery.
BlueDevil, I'm not talking about obesity being a protected class. And yes, bias will always exist and the law cannot change that. Often, discrimination is unconscious, anyway.
I'm simply saying that to put in place a policy that specifically prohibits fat people from working as NURSES with the assertions that 1) it is setting a poor example for patients, and 2) they cost more in healthcare and therefore more to insure, is a ludicrous a crappy idea.
Do you really think that obesity is a problem "so easily addressed?" Are you kidding? Would it be a nationwide epidemic if it were? Would we even be having this discussion? Sheesh.
Michael, do you think that private entities should be only able to hire white people? Or only men? Or fire anyone over the age of 40? Gee, free markets sort themselves out. It's all so simple now!
Nurses will be phased out with pcts, that's what my instructor used to tell me. If companies are looking for perfection then robots might be the solution among imperfect mortals.
Respectfully, I don't consider myself a chicken little at all. And I'm not blaming anyone for anything either. The point I was trying to make was that it is assinine, unfair, and kind of random to make hiring decisions based solely on a person's weight. There are fat nurses who are smarter, work harder, and are better nurses that thin ones. To say they should not be hired because they are "not setting a good example for patients" is ridiculous. To say that they should not be hired because they do not fit in with other physically fit and attractive employees is short sighted and mean spirited. That is discrimination, plain and simple. Yet, because you insist a person's weight is "modifiable," you absolve yourself of such.
What about religion? That's modifiable right? So should employers only hire Christians? If you're not a Christian, you can always change, right? Maybe they should just include a few questions on the HCAPS survey about what type of attributes patients prefer in their nurses, and guide hiring decisions that way. After all, like a lot of people on this thread have asserted, it's all about dollars and "sense." Maybe if the hospital hired only attractive, thin, fit, Christian, extroverted nurses with great teeth, scores and reimbursement would go through the roof? And those are all MODIFIABLE traits! Just get some plastic surgery, dental work, exercise, go to church, read the bible and pray. Take some Zoloft, slap on a smile, and blam, you are HIRED!!
No one dares discriminate based on race or ethnicity. At least they won't admit it if they do. No one dares discriminate based on age or religion, sexual orientation, or disability, or at least they won't admit if if they do. But there's this undercurrent of hate toward fat people that somehow, people think is OK. I call BS.
Race, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation are all protected classes of people. So is mental illness. So these groups are federally protected from job discrimination.
With all that being said, I don't agree with the idea that what one does on their personal time has one thing to do with how they perform as a professional. If it does, then that is a different story--
There are "rules" in different facilities. Mostly that one is subject to drug/ETOH testing, that one can be tested for nicotine and not hired due to this.
The obesity thing is mind boggling, and kinda scary. Nursing should never get to the point of churning out the same types of people to fit some sort of mold. Then we are in essence saying that only attractive people who look good in white with exceptional manners can be nurses.
Specializes in CCU, SICU, CVSICU, Precepting & Teaching.
it boggles the mind and scares me. I don't think it should preclude you from being hired, but I think that it should impact deductibles and benefits (don't flame me please!). I live clean-0 drinking, 0 smoking, only risky behavior is riding motorcycles. I eat healthy as I had bariatric surgery 5 years ago and chose to maintain healthy habits with exercise. I just don't think I should have to pay the price for others bad choices. I think we should ALL be held accountable for our choices. That is part of the problem with our country right now, no one wants to accept blame for mistakes, and wants everyone to pay the price for bad choices. It sounds harsh, but it's a reality that we all should start dealing with. Now, off my soapbox and to eat breakfast.....
You had bariatric surgery five years ago and don't think you should have to pay the price for other people's bad choices? I'm sure it wasn't all stellar choices that led you to require bariatric surgery, and I'm sure that you didn't pay for it out of your own pocket. Therefore, your bad choices led other people to have to subsidize your bariatric surgery. If everyone should be held accountable for their choices, that would include you.
it boggles the mind and scares me. I don't think it should preclude you from being hired, but I think that it should impact deductibles and benefits (don't flame me please!). I live clean-0 drinking, 0 smoking, only risky behavior is riding motorcycles. I eat healthy as I had bariatric surgery 5 years ago and chose to maintain healthy habits with exercise. I just don't think I should have to pay the price for others bad choices. I think we should ALL be held accountable for our choices. That is part of the problem with our country right now, no one wants to accept blame for mistakes, and wants everyone to pay the price for bad choices. It sounds harsh, but it's a reality that we all should start dealing with. Now, off my soapbox and to eat breakfast.....
Not pointing fingers, merely making an observation: Your bariatric surgery was likely paid for by the premiums of several hundred fellow Americans, unless you paid for that privately. For you to then say you shouldn't have to pay for 'the bad choices other people' make is rather disingenuous.
This very clearly illustrates the division in this country- every thinks their own faults, or habits, or even addictions are OK, but when we start talking about what other people do that's so wrong, well- let the hypocrisy flow?
You had bariatric surgery five years ago and don't think you should have to pay the price for other people's bad choices? I'm sure it wasn't all stellar choices that led you to require bariatric surgery, and I'm sure that you didn't pay for it out of your own pocket. Therefore, your bad choices led other people to have to subsidize your bariatric surgery. If everyone should be held accountable for their choices, that would include you.
How do you spell hypocrite?
(Just so you know I must have been typing my own reply at the same time you were typing your own- I didn't copy your reply!)
Congrats on your weight loss and maintaining a smoke and alcohol free lifestyle. I do have one concern, though. Because of your gastric bypass surgery, you have a greater risk of complications occurring with nutrient absorption, scar tissue, etc, than someone who did not have that surgery. So comparatively, you pose an increased risk and therefore should pay higher deductibles and copays now, since there is a chance that could happen in the future. Also, maybe you should be looked at as a hiring risk because of this issue. You would certainly cost your employer lots of money if you had to be out on STDB while you recovered from a complication. And then there is the motorcycle riding. People who ride motorcycles should be held responsible for their risky choices, too. I think you should have to pay part of my insurance bill because I don't ride motorcycles.
I'm being facetious of course. The point is, this debate is more complicated than talking about taking responsibility for your actions. I get particularly perturbed about the obesity issue because it's not the same thing as smoking, drinking, even riding motorcycles. It's not black and white. You don't have to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes, but you DO have to eat food. There are a million little choices and a bunch of other intervening factors, many of which are completely out of an individual's control, that determine if you are overweight or normal weight, obese, or thin. And no one ever talks about the difference between a heavy but active, strong, and productive obese person, and the obese person who is functionally and legally disabled because of their weight. It's a big difference. But if it came down to discrimination, you can bet it would all get lumped together based on BMI or some such easily calculable number.
Furthermore, one could argue at length as to what constitutes a healthy lifestyle. Of course we all agree on eating right, exercising, maintaining a healthy weight, wearing your seatbelt, not smoking, blah, blah blah. But what about emotional health? Maybe we shouldn't hire people who struggle with depression or anxiety because of the increased cost they pose on the system. What about people who use antiperspirant, eat non-organic meat, engage in risky sexual behaviors, get pregnant over the age of 35? Those are all behavior choices associated with potential disease processes or complications that lead to higher healthcare costs.
Just something to think about.
Let's not stop here- what about babies born premature, or diabetic- a lifestyle choice of the baby? What if the lifestyle choice of the mother may have caused the diabetes? People with mental illness- 'weak minded'? What about any genetic traits. Where does it stop?
Specializes in Leadership, Psych, HomeCare, Amb. Care.
Let's not stop here- what about babies born premature, or diabetic- a lifestyle choice of the baby? What if the lifestyle choice of the mother may have caused the diabetes? People with mental illness- 'weak minded'? ....
Mental Illness has absolutely no relationship to being weak minded. Its brain chemistry and/or experience.
Tell a vet or member of any armed forces, that their PTSD is a result of being weak minded. Or the abuse/rape/incest survivor. See how that conversation ends.
BlueDevil,DNP, DNP, RN
1,158 Posts
Do I think religion can be changed? This is where we acknowledge that as an atheist, I am not the right person to ask for a personal opinion on that matter. Religion is a legally protected class. To my understanding, religion is not considered a malleable personality characteristic, but something sacrosanct. Rationally, I cannot even begin to grasp that concept, but I accept it for what it is. But that was not a serious question in the first place, was it?
Obesity is not a legally protected class, nor should it be. There have been legions of studies supporting the hypothesis that more attractive candidates are hired and promoted faster and earn more money than less attractive candidates. Since obesity is not considered an attractive physical attribute in our culture, it stands to reason obese people would suffer the same unfortunate bias as other applicants deemed less attractive. This is neither new nor surprising. The interesting point is that if obesity is the only or the major disadvantage a candidate is facing, it is so easily addressed that it could be a non-issue for many within just a few months time.
A lof less time than it would take to convert to a new Religion or go through gender reassignment surgery.