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?
Mental Illness has absolutely no relationship to being weak minded. Its brain chemistry and/or experience.
Exactly- my point was meant to be that since so many claim lifestyle causes this is that, that I wouldn't be suprised to hear someone claim that someone else's mental illness was also the result of their own poor lifestyle, decisions, or other avoidable situation. All in all, it remains a fact that mental illness is not PC to talk about, and is certainly avoided as far as paying for treatment. As far as vets- it's 'shameless' how many of them are treated.
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?
This is just a ridiculous argument. Being born is not a lifestyle choice. Mental illness is not a choice.
While I don't think it's practical to punish people for their lousy lifestyle choices (based on measurable qualities), it might to useful to reward people who stay within their weight limits (the BMI's are generous in defining obesity); not smoking. As cranky as I am about paying for bariatric surgeries, knee and shoulder replacements, etc., people are simply monkeys with mortgages - in all their stupid lack of glory, lack of education, support, etc and should not be punished for people for having limitations. We all have them - some of our limitations are more visible than others.
Although I see what the OP is saying, if this is because they don't want people to smoke I can understand why employers won't hire smokers. I don't see it having a lot to do with premiums and an unhealthy lifestyle necessarily as it is gross to other people. I think probably about 80% of us do not lead totally healthy, clean living. There is always something. Whether I eat that extra piece of pizza or drink a 5 hour energy, or just don't have time to exercise a lot, I am really just affecting myself unless I am on public assistance.
The problem lies where when someone smokes they carry that stink with them all day. It physically makes me ill sometimes. I know smoking is an addiction and is hard to quit. I have watched my dad struggle with it for years. But that smell gets in your scrubs, hair, hands. I don't feel that is healthy for very ill patients. As much as people think they can cover it up, you can't. I can detect a smoker from about 50 feet away, no kidding. People think that they can smoke in their car with the window down, but that smell just permeates all over you. With the new ecigs although they are not healthy either, at least I don't feel like I want to physically vomit from it.
I don't agree with the slippery slope of screening people, but I honestly think the smoking has more to do with the smell.
I'm agreeing that smoking bans have more to do with the smell than anything else. I'd just been to the vending machine a couple of nights ago and I met a group of four nurses coming in from the outside at the elevator. I swear I just about choked to death from the smell while being trapped in the elevator with them for three floors. I smiled and said hi and all, and I waited until they got off on their floor to go into a coughing fit so I wouldn't seem like I was just coughing to be a jerk, but my eyes were watering for at least half an hour after smelling them and it gave me a bad headache. If they were so smoke-drenched that I had that bad of a reaction to the way they smelled just after being in the elevator with them for ten seconds, imagine an already nauseated patient, or a patient with a very sensitive smell, forced to deal with them all night. It's just not a good situation, and honestly - in this line of work it is unprofessional to come drenched in any heavy smells. It doesn't matter whether those smells are tobacco smoke or perfume; they are equally unacceptable.
Specializes in Critical Care, ED, Cath lab, CTPAC,Trauma.
For those who don't believe that discrimination against ANY lifestyle "choice" isn't s slippery slope....look at the law just passed by the Arizona state legislature.
I smiled and said hi and all, and I waited until they got off on their floor to go into a coughing fit so I wouldn't seem like I was just coughing to be a jerk,
(You're a much nicer person than me; I make a point of coughing a little and fanning the air in front of my face when I'm stuck with a bunch of stinky smokers like that ... :))
I think the question is, where does it end? higher premiums for people who live in high crime areas? People who have a family history of xyz disease? It's a slippery slope.
Also, Gov. Brewer vetoed the Arizona "discrimination" bill.
Personally, people should be able to smoke on their own time and employers can just make it so employees may not take breaks to smoke while at work. Just my opinion which holds no weight haha.
Specializes in Management, Med/Surg, Clinical Trainer.
I think the question is, where does it end? higher premiums for people who live in high crime areas? People who have a family history of xyz disease? It's a slippery slope.
I agree this is a slippery slope that unfortunately people have embraced.
Many people are of the mind that it is okay for them or a family member to have a bad habit but no one else. Hence the whole piece of this thread that talks about a poster having bariatric surgery and then condemning others????
The only way something like this works is if EVERYONE is held to the same standard. If you want me to be skinny give me the access to the tools to be successful.
I do not believe employers should have such intimate personal information on employees. Tobacco is a risk, however I'm sure everyone on this site has unhealthy lifestyle choices that they do not want to disclose to their employers. Not wearing seat belts, alcohol, sleep deprivation, mental health issues, poor diet, high stress, etc. Always choose the way of more rights for the workers. Anything else is adding to the snowball of privacy and personal choice issues
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
The free market capitalists will find ways to disadvantage the masses to their benefit. They don't want the government messing in their internal (personal and private) business, but they sure do want to be all up in ours.
They previously didn't care if you were at high risk for death because they just took out life insurance policies with them as the beneficiaries. If you died a young death they got paid. Easy schmeezy money in the bank. Some of the bigger companies even complained a little bit if the insured workers didn't die off fast enough or if they completed suicide which negated the policies.
Now, there are lots and lots of people who want the few jobs they are offering.
The government as given them the right to search our persons (blood and urine) without cause. Ok, maybe wanting a job is cause to think you/we might be substance abusers. ayup
The drug testing companies even thought that it would be profitable if all welfare/SNAP recipients were tested too, at tax payer expense.
Sam J.
407 Posts
Exactly- my point was meant to be that since so many claim lifestyle causes this is that, that I wouldn't be suprised to hear someone claim that someone else's mental illness was also the result of their own poor lifestyle, decisions, or other avoidable situation. All in all, it remains a fact that mental illness is not PC to talk about, and is certainly avoided as far as paying for treatment. As far as vets- it's 'shameless' how many of them are treated.