Home > Health & Fitness > Substance Abuse & Addiction > Substance Abuse & Addiction (Other)
Results so far:
| No | 52% | 237 votes | Total: 457 votes | |
| Yes | 48% | 220 votes |
No
Created on: June 11, 2009 Last Updated: June 13, 2009
Smoking and the use of tobacco is the single most preventable cause of illness and death in North America. More than 400,000 Americans and 40,000 Canadians die every year from tobacco-related illnesses.
In the United States, someone dies every 72 seconds from smoking cigarettes, cigars or pipes.
Hospitals should not have designated smoking areas. On the contrary, the director, board members and staff should do everything possible to prevent those within their walls or on their premises from smoking.
Many of the patients are likely in hospital as a result of tobacco use. Studies have shown that as much as 75% of coronary artery disease may be caused by smoking.
Tobacco addiction increases the risk of cancer, respiratory diseases, dangers during pregnancy, gastrointestinal problems and tooth and gum problems.
Smokers also suffer more sleeping problems, migraine headaches, coughs and colds, high blood pressure, sinus congestion and disabling fatigue than nonsmokers. There is really nothing positive to say about the use of tobacco.
Hospitals exist to fight illness. Why would they provide an area in which an activity causing illness is permitted? It just doesn't make sense.
Who would be affected if a general ban on smoking in hospitals were enforced ?
First of all, the patients would be unable to smoke. This will only hasten their recovery. If they are severely addicted, they could be offered a patch program while they're in residence, to ease withdrawal symptoms. Who knows? The experience might be the means of helping them overcome their addiction permanently.
The visitors would have to refrain from smoking. Normal hospital visits should be brief anyway, and the sight of a friend or loved one in poor health should distract their attention from their habit, at least temporarily. They are free to leave anytime.
The staff could not smoke: doctors, nurses, cleaners, orderlies and others. The brightest among these groups will not be addicted anyway. They have seen firsthand the results of the addiction: the pain, suffering, death, and the distraught relatives of patients with smoking-related disease.
The addicts will have to take their breaks in their vehicles or perhaps lounging against a lamppost on the street. Perhaps the associated inconvenience or the onset of inclement weather will be the means of freeing them from the slavery of their nicotine addiction. This would indeed be a blessing in disguise.
In the United States, smoking bans fall under the jurisdiction of each state. In Canada, they are regulated by each province.
In Ontario, where I live, smoking is banned in workplaces and indoors at all public places. A recent law forbids smoking in cars while a child is present. In an enclosed area like a vehicle a child will inhale more concentrated doses of secondhand smoke, and this is harmful to his respiratory system, as well as to other parts of his still-growing body.
For those who wish to quit smoking, there are many aids available today. As well as patches, there are pills, lozenges, inhalers, chewing gum, and smoking cessation programs. Family doctors are knowledgeable about available resources and are glad to help each patient find the best means to leave his addiction far behind.
Instead of having a designated smoking area, each hospital should have an area dedicated to the liberation of those still enslaved by the nicotine demon. This space could include information pamphlets, samples of available aids to kick the habit, a recovered addict and a encouraging nurse-practioner to dispense enthusiasm and courage to those wishing to quit.
It's true, the hospital may be losing future business. Nurses may soon have the time and energy to care for their patients the way they would like to. Doctors, no longer overworked, may remember your name from one visit to the next. Who knows? Those seriously ill may even be able to get a house call.
Is anyone about to argue, that the sooner we dispense with the use of tobacco products not only in hospitals but everywhere else too, the better?
Learn more about this author, Carolyn Tytler.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
Created on: April 11, 2012 Last Updated: April 12, 2012
Smoking is a health hazard not only to the smoker, but to those who have to breathe their second-hand smoke. It makes logical sense for a medical institution to have a designated area for smokers, so others will not be bothered or forced to inhale the second-hand smoke. When a non-smoking area is not enforced or there is no designated area, people have to breathe in the poisons of the smoker. This is unfair to patients seeking medical treatment at a hospital.
According to this website, “Cigarette smoking in the United States causes an estimated 440,000 deaths a year and costs the United States healthcare system over $150 billion annually. Additionally, according to the CDC, cigarette smoke contains 4,800 chemicals and 69 of them are proven to cause cancer.”
Smoking is well-known to cause a slow, painful death for those who never manage to kick the habit. It is also common knowledge that it of course leads to heart disease, multiple cancers, emphysema, etc.
Considering the facts, it should be common courtesy for a hospital to provide an area for smokers, so non-smokers, adults and children alike, do not have to walk through the path of 4,800 chemicals before entering a place meant to be a beacon of health.
Some hospitals have gone as far as to ban smoking on the property period, however, this ban is not regularly enforced if the smoker is a good distance from hospital doors.
Hospitals should make it a point to do everything they can to dissuade smoking. Adding anti-smoking and health issue signs and posters to a designated area will result in the absorption of anti-smoking into the minds of smokers. If the designated area littered with warnings makes one person quit smoking, that’s one life saved from the inevitable, gruesome death of a smoker. Many in-patients smoke and should be given a designated area, along with warning signs. It could be outside, or it could be a sealed room with heavy ventilation to suck up the smoke. It is hardly a challenge or costly for a hospital to implement such measures.
The point to be made is not just that smoking kills, but no one should have to breathe the smoke if they do not want to, especially at a hospital. It should be common sense for a hospital, being a large healthcare facility, to create a designated area for the well-being of its patients who do not want to be exposed to second-hand smoke. The medical community needs to take a stand on this issue as it is one of the nation’s greatest health concerns.
Learn more about this author, Daniel Cloud.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.