:angryfire Is there anyone out there who agrees with me?
I work on a ward where we frequently provide palliative care for patients with cancer (amongst other things). I cannot stress how much it infuriates me when nurses who are smokers go into a dying cancer patient's room stinking of cigarette smoke.
In my opinion this is so morally and ethically wrong that I took my concerns to our unit manager after a patient's family made a complaint to me about another nurse. Unfortunately the NUM also smokes like a chimney and bla bla bla bla nothing was done.
Now that I have unloaded I feel more able to look at the situation objectively and decide on a course of action through appropriate channels.
I would welcome any and all opinions on smoking in the workplace.
(Please let it be known that I do not object to any person's right to smoke off the ward if they wish, only in the circumstances descibed above).
]People who smoke are not in a protected group. Protected groups include people who use wheelchairs, people who are members of a particular nationality or ethic group, or people with children. Also, people federal disability rights laws.
]The problem for Scotts: "The company has not determined how it will verify compliance with the new policy..." It will be interesting to read a follow up of this story.
]As stated in another post: This is business and about the increasing costs of medical care.
You're not reading what I wrote. Any business can effect a smoking ban on it's property and that is fine by me. I would love to see all public indoor environments smoke free. However, when they start reaching out to effect what legal activity I partake on my time as a condition of employment, that is where I raise the unconstitutional flag. For anyone to support a company's efforts to make what legal activity they partake in on their own time a condition of employment is reprehensible. This is the same kind of attack on freedoms our ancestors came to this land to escape.
What legal activity will be the next condition of employment? Risky sports? Firearm ownership? Will companies next target overwieght people? Being overweight causes some health problems that too are expensive. I'm considered overweight by every chart I see yet I can name several endurance sports that 90% of the 25 year old population cannot compete with me in. My RHR is 45, my BP is 118/60, my MAX HR is 180 (higher than the 220-age formula), and my % body fat is 19. Should I then still have to loose weight to "fit the model" or get fired?
Look at the big picture. This issue of freedom errosion isn't just about healthcare costs. It's about the errosion of freedoms in general. What's to prevent a company from next targeting something they view as unethical, like hunting?
Most businesses that survive have a unique [sIC] way to deal with a negative cash flow. It's called increase the price of the good or service. If the current premiums on smokers is not enough to cover the cost of their illness treatment then raise their premiums, don't make a legal activity a condition of employment.
New here, forgive me for my first post to be in such a heated debate
But, realistically, it is in all honesty certainly prejudicial to only ban smoking, with no mention of those who are sedentary and eat too much Mickey D's. Rationalize it away as being fair all you want but the statstics show that lack of excercise and improper health to be a close second to preventable deaths.
It is intellectually dishonest to say that this isn't indeed a very slippery slope.
Can you imagine the uproar if obese people were fired? Yet it is just as dangerous. One year, the CDC put the stats as 400k deaths a year, the next year, they were much more conservative, though cardiac experts say the long term dangers really are unknown at this point.
Who knows, but I do think those who support the ban on smoking in your free time better rethink this.
"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
while a bit melodramatic, it is apropos
Ok back to lurking to learn more about my future career!!
:angryfire Is there anyone out there who agrees with me?
I work on a ward where we frequently provide palliative care for patients with cancer (amongst other things). I cannot stress how much it infuriates me when nurses who are smokers go into a dying cancer patient's room stinking of cigarette smoke.
In my opinion this is so morally and ethically wrong that I took my concerns to our unit manager after a patient's family made a complaint to me about another nurse. Unfortunately the NUM also smokes like a chimney and bla bla bla bla nothing was done.
Now that I have unloaded I feel more able to look at the situation objectively and decide on a course of action through appropriate channels.
I would welcome any and all opinions on smoking in the workplace.
(Please let it be known that I do not object to any person's right to smoke off the ward if they wish, only in the circumstances descibed above).
I am a smoker and can understand how non smokers do not wish to smell my habit that is why I wash my hands afterwards and do everything i can possibly do to minimize the smell. But for the people that say you shouldn't be able to smoke at home what you do at home IS your buisness. If you go that far that you shouldnt be able to drink either, over eat, get a speeding ticket you HAVE to be perfect.
I can see this being used toward woman...once a woman has a high risk pregnancy her chances of having another goes threw the roof.....so can a employer threaten women with termination if they get pregnant again with a high risk pregnancy? Or maybe not hire women that are in the risk groups for having high risk pregnancies. That will save a TON of ins monies. This country is turning it's back on employees. Who cares of you are slowly losing your rights...at least you have a job....and if you don't like it go find another one....that will be hard to to if ALL employers had the same policies.
I agree !!!!!! It also made me mad this past semester as a student nurse who wasn't a smoker. Others in the clinical group would leave several times per day to smoke for 15 minutes at a time, however if I were to go to the break room for a drink I was asked if I was "keeping watch of the time". I understand habits, but it should be limited and is in a lot of places i know. In Ohio and here in South Dakota there are several hospitals that have made their entire campus smoke free...no smoking in a certain circumference around the hospital. Great idea if you ask me.
My wife and I smoked many years. 18 mo's ago she was hit by a drunk driver, resulting in a TBI. When she was released from rehab and came home she was no longer smoking. I would go outside, out of site and smoke. I tried not to smoke at work, not always successful. I began to look around me, none of my family or friends, very little coworkers, smoked. I felt very self concious after I smoked, and it seems no matter what you do to cover it up, it just doesnt work. So, I just put them down, after more than 20 years, I just quit cold turkey. It's been 14 mo's now, and I feel great and surprised at how easy it was to quit.
i don't know why this needs to evolve into a personal rights debate.
it has nothing to do w/one's personal rights.
the issue is smoking stinks- no way around it. period.
and your patients shouldn't have to smell it.
leslie
You are quite right, smoking does stink... but so does turd... I don't think my patients should have to smell it eminating in the halls in my unit. No way around it... it has to turn in to a personal rights debate (for it to be interesting anyway.)
I am a nurse that smokes...with that said, I completely agree with what you are saying. I choose not to smoke while I'm at work (for many reasons...among others, I don't have time!!:chuckle ) Anyway, I cna't see how anything good could come from walking into a room and leaning over a patient or just being close to them and smelling like cigarettes. It just doesn't seem right.
One thing I'm amazed about... a few people have stated that smokers leave the workplace for 15 minutes for a smoke break! I smoke and take it off my breaks, which I think is only right. I also only take 5 minutes out of the dept to smoke and by the end of the day, the work employer has actually had me on the floor for more time than the time I deduct from my break times!
I do plan to give up, sadly, it may cost me more at the moment (it did last time) to give up than keep going - if my employer gave patches free (and seeing as it's the NHS, they should!), I'd do it tomorrow!
> the issue is smoking stinks- no way around it. period.
and your patients shouldn't have to smell it.
If I were a patient being cared for by a smoking nurse, would I be able to get a noseclip to wear while (s)he was in my room? That would be nice if the only bad effect of smoking were the smell. How about the asthmatic whose lungs are severely irritated by the noxious chemicals connected with smoking? Whether they will admit it or not, every smoker carries his/her little cloud of smoke around wherever (s)he goes and spreads it with every exhalation.
This comes from an ex-smoker who is now paying the penalty of severe COPD. Self-inflicted misery, you say? Nevertheless, I feel that clean air should be a part of what I pay for when I am hospitalized against my will.
The most disgusting situation I have ever had to contend with was being charged exorbitant fees for respiratory tests in a department where all the employees were smokers and even the testing equipment reeked of smoke. I still wonder if my poor performance on those tests wasn't somewhat due to my trying to control the nausea I was suffering because of the odor.
IT doesn't matter WHERE it's burning. 
jimthorp
496 Posts
You're not reading what I wrote. Any business can effect a smoking ban on it's property and that is fine by me. I would love to see all public indoor environments smoke free. However, when they start reaching out to effect what legal activity I partake on my time as a condition of employment, that is where I raise the unconstitutional flag. For anyone to support a company's efforts to make what legal activity they partake in on their own time a condition of employment is reprehensible. This is the same kind of attack on freedoms our ancestors came to this land to escape.
What legal activity will be the next condition of employment? Risky sports? Firearm ownership? Will companies next target overwieght people? Being overweight causes some health problems that too are expensive. I'm considered overweight by every chart I see yet I can name several endurance sports that 90% of the 25 year old population cannot compete with me in. My RHR is 45, my BP is 118/60, my MAX HR is 180 (higher than the 220-age formula), and my % body fat is 19. Should I then still have to loose weight to "fit the model" or get fired?
Look at the big picture. This issue of freedom errosion isn't just about healthcare costs. It's about the errosion of freedoms in general. What's to prevent a company from next targeting something they view as unethical, like hunting?
Most businesses that survive have a unique [sIC] way to deal with a negative cash flow. It's called increase the price of the good or service. If the current premiums on smokers is not enough to cover the cost of their illness treatment then raise their premiums, don't make a legal activity a condition of employment.