Akron Children's Hospital no longer hires smokers

Akron Children's Hospital is joining the ranks of about 6,000 other companies nationwide by establishing a new nicotine-free hiring policy.

[harleyrider1978]

I do believe there was a study done about all the great minds hitler killed of in concentration camps.Then we have the years of discrimination against other minorities thru the eons....such a great loss to human kind when discrimination is LEGAL.

[just candid]

Another hospital making the right move, protecting it's staff and customers. Among other things when people smoke it proves they make poor decisions, who want's that type person working in a hospital.

[Nick Naylor]

Ok, let's kick this around a little and have an honest, productive exchange.

Nicotine is detected in the blood stream a longer period of time than alcohol and other drugs--making it easier to adjust a schedule to hide a alcohol/drug habit.

Nicotine very rarely (if at all) impairs abilities like alcohol and other drugs--a condition that certainly calls for action.

If it weren't for the smoke, you would rarely be aware of a tobacco user, unlike someone who is intoxicated, overweight, or sleep deprived (another condition that exists in the medical field).

Why continue to hire overweight doctors and nurses? Does that not show they make poor decisions as well?

Doctors and nurses are usually on call. Are they held to the same alcohol standards as truck drivers?

[just candid]

Nick Naylor wrote:

Ok, let's kick this around a little and have an honest, productive exchange.
Nicotine is detected in the blood stream a longer period of time than alcohol and other drugs--making it easier to adjust a schedule to hide a alcohol/drug habit.
Nicotine very rarely (if at all) impairs abilities like alcohol and other drugs--a condition that certainly calls for action.
If it weren't for the smoke, you would rarely be aware of a tobacco user, unlike someone who is intoxicated, overweight, or sleep deprived (another condition that exists in the medical field).
Why continue to hire overweight doctors and nurses? Does that not show they make poor decisions as well?
Doctors and nurses are usually on call. Are they held to the same alcohol standards as truck drivers?

No doubt about it, many Drs and nurses have been known to drink and use certain drugs to keep going. Sleep deprivation is a big problem as can be seen by looking at any interns hours. Being overweight is for some a product of poor eating habits or caused by some mental obsession, they do need help. Smoking however is easy to see, smoke lingers on smokers clothing and can often be smelled by patients. Tobacco use is proven to be harmful to peoples health, it's use by hospital staff sends a open message to everyone that health concerns are not high on the hospitals list of priorities. I belive the number of deaths caused by hospital staff mistakes creates a need for hospitals to do every thing in their power to try and look good.

[amazed]

just candid wrote:

<quoted text> No doubt about it, many Drs and nurses have been known to drink and use certain drugs to keep going. Sleep deprivation is a big problem as can be seen by looking at any interns hours. Being overweight is for some a product of poor eating habits or caused by some mental obsession, they do need help. Smoking however is easy to see, smoke lingers on smokers clothing and can often be smelled by patients. Tobacco use is proven to be harmful to peoples health, it's use by hospital staff sends a open message to everyone that health concerns are not high on the hospitals list of priorities. I belive the number of deaths caused by hospital staff mistakes creates a need for hospitals to do every thing in their power to try and look good.

This hospital already had requirements in place, smoke free campus, no leaving campus during shift, no smoking on the way to work because if you smelled of smoke you were sent home. So given these policies, the patients and relatives would never know if the staff smoked or not. But NOW they want to discriminate...it has nothing to do with being a role model or the obesity issue would have to be included. It also has nothing to do with cost savings on their health care program or they would also address obesity, prescription drug use, and alcohol but they don't. That's hiring discrimination pure and simple.

[Nick Naylor]

Alright. Still, this all teeters on a dangerous personal invasion.

Is it possible that people will simply no longer choose to be in the medical field rather than give up personal habits (good or bad)?

I believe we should be thankful that we have a place to go where people chose to educate themselves on how to help us--regardless of the outcome. Years ago people were not so fortunate.

As for tobacco, if I'm reading you right, your real issue about yourself and your need to feel you're helping others by eliminating tobacco smoke. It really isn't about your concern for the health of tobacco users. If it were, your focus would be on all forms of tobacco.

Would be you as opposed to tobacco if it were all smokeless? If you are, then do you support prohibition of alcohol, the ban of fast food restaurants (L.A.), the ban of processed meats, the ban of cheese, and countless other things we ingest, inhale or do that can harm ourselves?

[amazed]

Nick Naylor wrote:

Ok, let's kick this around a little and have an honest, productive exchange.
Nicotine is detected in the blood stream a longer period of time than alcohol and other drugs--making it easier to adjust a schedule to hide a alcohol/drug habit.
Nicotine very rarely (if at all) impairs abilities like alcohol and other drugs--a condition that certainly calls for action.
If it weren't for the smoke, you would rarely be aware of a tobacco user, unlike someone who is intoxicated, overweight, or sleep deprived (another condition that exists in the medical field).
Why continue to hire overweight doctors and nurses? Does that not show they make poor decisions as well?
Doctors and nurses are usually on call. Are they held to the same alcohol standards as truck drivers?

You are very correct, thus the new urine tests. Their current smoking staff no doubt is using patches, gum, etc. during their shifts. The hospital is testing for nicotine, so if they had non-smoking new hires who are still on the gum lets say, they would fail the test and be unemployable.

[Nick Naylor]

Indeed. Does this lead to breath analyzers at the time clock?

If this is fair, does this mean the nicotine users can sue all the companies like the female wait staff of the Borgata in Atlantic City or Hooters?

If different, why?

[amazed]

Nick Naylor wrote:

Indeed. Does this lead to breath analyzers at the time clock?

Probably, a few companies are using the palm/finger print scanners to track bathroom usage as well. You have to scan to open the door, it is indeed 1984.

[Sandy]

just candid wrote:

<quoted text> No doubt about it, many Drs and nurses have been known to drink and use certain drugs to keep going. Sleep deprivation is a big problem as can be seen by looking at any interns hours. Being overweight is for some a product of poor eating habits or caused by some mental obsession, they do need help. Smoking however is easy to see, smoke lingers on smokers clothing and can often be smelled by patients. Tobacco use is proven to be harmful to peoples health, it's use by hospital staff sends a open message to everyone that health concerns are not high on the hospitals list of priorities. I belive the number of deaths caused by hospital staff mistakes creates a need for hospitals to do every thing in their power to try and look good.

My husband had eye surgery recently.And he could cigarette smoke on the nurse that prepped him for surgery.It sticks to everything.It dont set a good example for health professionals when they are smokers.Hard to preach about the dangers of smoking when you do it.

[Happy Contented Soul]

Sandy wrote:

<quoted text>My husband had eye surgery recently.And he could cigarette smoke on the nurse that prepped him for surgery.It sticks to everything.It dont set a good example for health professionals when they are smokers.Hard to preach about the dangers of smoking when you do it.

"And he could cigarette smoke on the nurse that prepped him for surgery."

Does that mean he sucked on her like a cigarette?

[PicassoIII]

Sandy wrote:

Hard to preach about the dangers of smoking when you do it.

Uh, doctors and nurses aren't supposed to PREACH, they are supposed to diagnose, treat and heal.
I have PPO (yes i PAY my OWN way)....any doctor who speaks to me as a child or from a 'high horse' doesn't stay my doctor.
They are not 'role models' they are highly skilled professionals..nothing more, nothing less.

Now if a PRIVATE hospital wants to discriminate that's ok i guess.....the hard core libertarian in me.
BUT, Akron Childrens is a PUBLIC institution. EEOC applies.
The ACLU should be all over this in a hearbeat.
http://www.aclu.org/workplacerights/gen/13384...

[mcmm]

If a business can not hire a smoker, for whatever reason, why then can't a business hire only a smoker and allow smoking at that business? And remember the employee smokes so they are not affected by SHS.

[PicassoIII]

Nick Naylor wrote:

Still, this all teeters on a dangerous personal invasion.

Teeters?
It's way over the line. Tobacco is a legal product, it is NOT an intoxicant. Someone could have a sky high blood nicotine level and it has ZERO effect on their job performance..

[Nick Naylor]

Sandy wrote:

<quoted text>My husband had eye surgery recently.And he could cigarette smoke on the nurse that prepped him for surgery.It sticks to everything.It dont set a good example for health professionals when they are smokers.Hard to preach about the dangers of smoking when you do it.

Is it possible that this similar to the line of thinking that has led to eliminating physical education from schools? I was always surprised by the number of overweight phys. ed. teachers I had.

[Nick Naylor]

PicassoIII wrote:

<quoted text>Teeters?
It's way over the line. Tobacco is a legal product, it is NOT an intoxicant. Someone could have a sky high blood nicotine level and it has ZERO effect on their job performance..

Agreed. I was trying to get a good honest volley going with JC.

[Non-Cas Fan]

PicassoIII wrote:

<quoted text>Teeters?
It's way over the line. Tobacco is a legal product, it is NOT an intoxicant. Someone could have a sky high blood nicotine level and it has ZERO effect on their job performance..

Maybe so, but the hospital, like any other business, should have the latitude to discriminate against certain people, whenever it's legal for them to do so.

A church, for instance, is permitted (and even expected) to filter out non-believers from being employed as their pastor. Such a policy is not (yet) decried. A church can, subsequently, fire their pastor if he is discovered to engage in certain acts, many of which may be perfectly legal for him to do so from a secular perspective.

Like any other business, hospitals can refuse to hire smokers, even though smoking is quite legal.

Do you think Ford should be prohibited from firing executives that continue to buy non-Ford cars? Should Ford be castigated for refusing to hire executives who will not buy Ford cars?

My point is that the freedoms and liberties that we hold dear include the option for a hospital, or any other company, to refuse to hire someone for whatever their reason, so long as it does not violate the anti-discrimination laws.

Will smoking affect a doctor's job performance? I don't know. But that doesn't matter, from the freedom perspective.

A company that hired smokers exclusively is acting on the same freedom that allows a company to hire only non-smokers exclusively.

[PicassoIII]

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

Maybe so, but the hospital, like any other business, should have the latitude to discriminate against certain people, whenever it's legal for them to do so.

But there's a problem NCF, IF it were a private institution sure, but as far as i can tell from a quick search, Akron Children's is associated with state schools.
If it were truly private.....have at.
A cancer center that actively recruits smokers could be WILDLY succesfull by offering sympathetic and respectful care for smokers, no?
A smart business will hire the best people regardless of their habits, ethnicity or orientation. Those that discriminate for any reason exclude potentially phenominal hires to their detriment.

OTOH since a privately owned bar cannot hire only smokers to serve smokers without getting in some kind of trouble somewhere we end up with a bit of a double standard, no?

[PicassoIII]

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

so long as it does not violate the anti-discrimination laws.

Which should have been temporary band-aids it the 1st place, no?
What part of "All 'men' are created equal..." is vague....
I can walk the walk of a true minarchist libertatian. But i will not hestitate to point out double standards that i see.

[Non-Cas Fan]

PicassoIII wrote:

<quoted text>But there's a problem NCF, IF it were a private institution sure, but as far as i can tell from a quick search, Akron Children's is associated with state schools.
If it were truly private.....have at.
A cancer center that actively recruits smokers could be WILDLY succesfull by offering sympathetic and respectful care for smokers, no?
A smart business will hire the best people regardless of their habits, ethnicity or orientation. Those that discriminate for any reason exclude potentially phenominal hires to their detriment.
OTOH since a privately owned bar cannot hire only smokers to serve smokers without getting in some kind of trouble somewhere we end up with a bit of a double standard, no?

I don't disagree with what you state here.

I've not heard about a bar being unable to hire only smokers. Did that really happen?

Because, yeah, that would be a double standard on the part of the entity that disallows that bar from hiring only smokers but gives a nod to a company that only hires nonsmokers.