The health board could enforce a smoking ban which could see staff fired for carrying tobacco on hospital grounds.
Not only this but the old chestnut of "smokers should not be treated if they don't stop" has cropped up again.
Listen below as Eddie Douthwaite, Chairman of Freedom2Choose Scotland, responding on Five Live radio, goes up against some harridan who thinks it is totally fair to withhold treatment from non compliant smokers. He is also up against a 'patients rights' group in Scotland who's only interested in non-smoking patients rights, smokers, to her, can go to hell.
Remind you of anyone?
In the second interview Eddie gave today on Radio Scotland he goes up against the same woman from the patients rights group.
Click To Play
It's not your lifestyle choice that will kill you, it's Grampian NHS! And it's coming to a NHS hospital near you, mark my words!
Hat Tip to Freedom2Choose (Scotland) blogspot.
15 comments:
It will be interesting to see how the NHS staff unions react to this.
I am begining to feel an awakening even amongst the conformist people that something is not right in our society.
All the wrongs are being perpetrated by a few nutjobs on the masses.
When the penny really does drop which as more and more of this crap is imposed on us is a certainty ,they "will" find themselves in front of an angry mob ,believe me.
STOP PRESS ... DECISION DELAYED!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-10851431
Agreed Anon.
it'll be 'means testing' all round. The public will not stand for it
Eddie,
Good job. You might consider including the idea of deranged eugenic (materialist) ideology, i.e., no-one is permitted to disagree with the ideology. A Smokefree World is a critical aspect of eugenics ideology. Also, the idea of banning smoking in medical (and education) facilities was one of the earliest introduced in the Godber Blueprint in the mid-1970s.
Also, the idea that smoking necessarily hinders treatment is also questionable. There may be a good argument that bombarding smoking patients with antismoking propaganda and policy (i.e., a hostile environment) produces psychological distress, which hinders healing. The idea that all sorts of maladies are attributable to smoking is questionable.
The idea that hospitals are necessarily places of healing is also questionable (thankfully an amount of healing does occur). The estimate of iatrogenic morbidity and mortality (e.g., medical mistakes, adverse drug reactions) is higher – and on a far more coherent causal basis – than “smoking-related” morbidity/mortality. There is also the problem of drug-resistant infection (e.g., golden staph). Hospitals can be quite dangerous places. There is also a question mark over the squandering of funds on over-servicing and over-prescribing. The medical establishment will not even address the numerous skeletons in its own closet. Yet it is venturing into enforcing dangerous, bigoted ideology. It is neglecting/violating its primary function of treatment of the sick, substituting the promotion of ideology as the primary function.
The woman could have been asked how stepping on some cigarette butts or “walking the gauntlet” of smokers outside is a threat to her (nonsmokers’) health? What is the evidence? Has the woman ever heard of anxiety reactions (i.e., psychological) produced by decades of inflammatory propaganda. She sounds like one of the easily brainwashed. You could ask her if she thinks the medical establishment is god? Does she believe everything the medical establishment says at face value? You could highlight that the last ventures of the medical establishment into socio-political domination (i.e., eugenics of early-1900s USA and Nazi Germany - and where antismoking figured highly) were utterly catastrophic. In other words, the medical establishment has a very dark, obsessed-with-control side.
You can also provide an analogy. What if a religious-denomination hospital demanded that you be converted to the religion before treatment would be administered. There would be understandable outrage. Yet, from their point of view, being of the particular faith is part of being “healthy”. Yet people are allowed to not agree with the metaphysical position with no consequence for treatment. The same applies to eugenic ideology. The idea that people should not smoke is an ideological position, cultic even. People should not be forced to accept this ideology to receive treatment.
I suppose the challenge is how to get even some of this information through in a 5-minute interview with a brainwashed antismoker in your ear. :)
And what happens when people are refused treatment because they have a fry up breakfast or eat fat fried chips? And those who enjoy eating chocolate?
Doctors code's are to help people get better, not to judge on their life styles. After all, would you use a mechanic who said to you - "I'm going to have to charge you extra replacing your shock absorbers as I see you're going over bumps in the road?"
I agree that we should take far more personal responsibility of our lives. It's just not the right of doctor's to do it for us.
This subject is not at an end the truth will eventually be revealed to the public.
The only thing I dont agree with is sacking someone in possession of a packet of fags, which wasn't actually touched on in the debate at all..
Personally I think hospitals do a fantastic job and just as I wouldn't take advice from a unhealthy gym instructor neither would I be happy if I was being stretchered into the hospital and having to (silk)cut through smokeing nurses at the entrance.
I don't think it's right that people should smoke on hospital ground. But I don't think treatment should be taken away from people because they smoke.
There is a school in north Lincs that has a no smoking policy in the school building and on the school grounds. This policy is in some Hull schools I know of too(I've got a few friends who are teachers) These policys have never caused an issue with staff or pupils, they simply walk to the perimeter of the grounds and light up! no harm done. So what's the problem with that?
From the debate it seemed perfectly logical that if you are a patient then you can't smoke inside or on the grounds of the building. If you are well enough to leave, then leave and have a fag when you reach the boundry.. job done!
When I first started reading forums like this.. the Nazi stuff was never mentioned, now everytime there is a debate someone is a Nazi or there is a relationship to hitler or something like that.. I really wish pro-smokers who stop making those comparisons, you are your own worst enemy.. If you want people to support you, then stop creating a "them and us" start talking about the benefits of smoking, start educating people about how good it is.. stop attacking them and calling them Nazi's because all that will do is make them think you have lost it.
I've got to admit thou I did have a little chuckle when eddie said about sports people, and the radio host said yeah but sport people don't do that in hospital grounds! haha.. I had this vision of someone impaling themselves with a javelin in the reception area of a hospital.. haha.. obviously you have to have my python sense of humour to get that..
great debate thou :)
Eddie, on Radio Scotland 3rd August during the ‘smoking discussion’ you touched on a subject that has been a concern of mine for many years:
That children are subjected to vehicle exhaust fumes both at kerbside and in traffic in general when in pushchairs/strollers etc. Parents/carers need to be made aware of just what children in their care are being (innocently) subjected to on a daily basis.
I’m amazed that this issue has not been given the high profile it so deserves.
Nana,
Scotland
Simple Nanna @8/03/2010 09:06:00 PM
The antis won't touch it for two reasons.
1.Just about everyone has a car.
2.There's no money or lucrative cushy careers to be built on it !
Smokers are an easy target for the unscrupulous to feed off because they are a minority albeit a large one ,yet still a minority.
Or so they think adult smoking figures are based on UK legitimate sales.
the woman said 'do you want everyone to get rid of their cars'? the only answer to that is, is it health you want or convenience? If exhaust fumes are 100 times more toxic than SHS (probably a lot more than that) it makes no sense to get rid of smoking just because it's easier to harass smokers than to do without personal transport.
Good job we don't drive cars inside contained public spaces :)
Apart from multi-storey car parks which are more than 50% enclosed, of which there are two near me, of course.
Diesel trains drive straight through other smokefree zones too.
{Whisper} ignore directive four ;)
Will the hospitals deny AIDS
treatment to practicing homosexuals
if they continue with their
life styles or Soap fans who start
going doolally yet continue to
drool over Corrie and Doc'n'nursey
series.
And lets not forget the chav dames
who cant keep their knickers on
then line up for "sorting out"
treatment.
The list is endless
Oh, "Baz"on earlier comment
Buzz off and stop being a nEnny.
If you like telling people what they can and cannot do
theres a vacancy for byke repaires in Pyongyang
I haven't told anyone what they can and cannot do!..
I've only said what I think.. You can do what the hell you want Anon.. Just as I can.
Please don't mistake any words I'm saying, with advice or recommendation or instruction. These are my thoughts. I'm perfectly happy for you to live your own life.
Dick, the majority of carparks are either open air or are open over 50%. The ones that aren't have appropriate ventilation that takes them up to that level. There are certain building regulations that apply to the building of car parks re: exhaust fumes and internal spaces. Just as their are to cigarette smoke.
These regulations take into account the amount of time people generally spend in these spaces, which is considerably LESS than the time they spend in other social places, like in a beer garden!
Post a Comment