GUH ban smoking on its premises

Irishgoatman

I'm a 20 to 30 cigs a day man. Last year I was in Merlin Park twice for ops. each time a stay of 5 days. For me personally the ban is no problem as I never bothered to go for a smoke because it was too much trouble. Leaving the ward, making my way down to the front door just to get cold? not worth it. But, yes, I can see others having problems.

How's this for fairness. In the early 90's one of the Liverpool hospitals (can't remember which one as I had op's in two of them) put in a ban on smoking on Hospital grounds BUT only for the staff!!!

Never heard how it worked out as I moved over here.

Viral Vector

I'm volunteering in Merlin Park and one of my tasks is to make sure a resident (had a stroke - can't communicate effectively) doesn't burn down the place (he's done it twice!) when I bring him out the back of the residental unit for a smoke.

Now with this new ban does he have to go without cigarettes or do I have to wheel him across the road to Supermacs for a smoke 5 times in 2 hours?

yermanoffthetv

Seaneh wrote: »

Smoking costs the state more in health care than they state receives in taxes.

Any source for that? In fact it appears the opposite is true according to a Dutch study.Burgers and fags for all!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html


I read somewhere (UK article iirc) that someone smoking for 15 years effectively pays for themselves through taxation. At 9.20 a pack id guess €6 of that goes back to the government.

Now I know smokers will agree that it shouldnt be encouraged especially in a hospital but are you going to force an eldery/injured/person on a drip out to the gates a few times a day when its pissin down? Thats just cruel :mad:

barryd09

This will be enforced like it is at Dublin Airport - not at all.

You have a constant monotone voice saying "This is a non-smoking zone blah blah blah" and no one bats an eyelid.

They'll pay some gobsh1te €50k a year to walk around with a clip board telling people off and wagging fingers.

For example - for both patients & non-patients, clipboard busy body wanders up and says "you cant smoke here, this is a no smoking zone/hospital" the offender replies "fine,sorry about that" ciggy stubbed out and thats it until their next ciggy. What powers has this 'enforcer' got exactly? Can they demand your name & address? Off either a patient or non-patient?? Will they write you a ticket? Call the cops? I bloody doubt it.

While i agree that theres no way people should be crowding around any doorway smoking, let alone a hospital but to be expecting people to be going to the main road is ridicilous.
Bottom line - Wont be enforced.

NomdePlume

JustMary wrote: »

Unlike any other addictive substance, smoking offers no benefits at all, ever, to anyone. If sick people won't give up the fags while they're in hospital, then discharge 'em and give the bed to someone who is prepared to engage in behaviours that will help them get better instead of worse: goodness knows the waiting lists are long enough.

Horrible attitude.

My father is in a cancer ward at the moment, and has been for about 6 weeks now. He doesn't have lung cancer, but several other men on the ward do, and some of them still go out for a smoke now and then.

That is the power of addiction -- knowing that something is killing you (and not just knowing in that abstract, "maybe-someday" sense, but right now and for definite) and continuing anyway. Quitting may go from hard to incredibly difficult when you add a devastating diagnosis into the equation. It's, horribly, a time when you need relief and comfort more than ever.

If you visit a cancer ward on a regular basis and get talking to the people there, you'll be amazed at their good humour in the face of crisis; their friendliness/caring towards each other (some of them have chatted to my dad, and told him to have hope), and their down-to-earth understanding of their situation.

There is virtue in those people. Try suspending the sanctimony for 5 minutes and you might see it.

yermanoffthetv

NomdePlume wrote: »

Horrible attitude.

My father is in a cancer ward at the moment, and has been for about 6 weeks now. He doesn't have lung cancer, but several other men on the ward do, and some of them still go out for a smoke now and then.

That is the power of addiction -- knowing that something is killing you (and not just knowing in that abstract, "maybe-someday" sense, but right now and for definite) and continuing anyway. Quitting may go from hard to incredibly difficult when you add a devastating diagnosis into the equation. It's, horribly, a time when you need relief and comfort more than ever.

If you visit a cancer ward on a regular basis and get talking to the people there, you'll be amazed at their good humour in the face of crisis; their friendliness/caring towards each other (some of them have chatted to my dad, and told him to have hope), and their down-to-earth understanding of their situation.

There is virtue in those people. Try suspending the sanctimony for 5 minutes and you might see it.

Beautifully summed up the situation there and I wish your dad a speedy recovery.

Irishgoatman

Seaneh wrote: »

Smoking costs the state more in health care than they state receives in taxes.

Not sure if this is true or not here, but in the U.K. in the early 90's a Doctor, who was anti smoking but hated people being misled, was on the, then, Richard and Judy show.
He had government figures that showed the government received around 21 million pounds A DAY from various taxes connected with smoking and cigarette production. He had Health Department figures which showed that smokers cost the health service around 3.5 million pounds A DAY.

I think you can all do the math on that one :eek:.

When talking about taxes to the government from smoking we have to add in taxes other than on cigs themselves

Robbo

Irishgoatman wrote: »

Not sure if this is true or not here, but in the U.K. in the early 90's a Doctor, who was anti smoking but hated people being misled, was on the, then, Richard and Judy show.
He had government figures that showed the government received around 21 million pounds A DAY from various taxes connected with smoking and cigarette production. He had Health Department figures which showed that smokers cost the health service around 3.5 million pounds A DAY.

I think you can all do the math on that one :eek:.

When talking about taxes to the government from smoking we have to add in taxes other than on cigs themselves

I read a Revenue document recently that put the tax take from smoking at in or around €1 billion. If someone could get a headline figure for the health budget, a figure for health costs *caused* by smoking (and the fun will really lie in this part, out will come the logical fallacies and twisting of stats), we can work out whether smoking is integral to the survival of the country.

Hell, if we can extend it further, we can make puns about the possibility of burning bondholders with cigarettes.

snubbleste

Well if you look at this "attempted" cost-benefit analysis from 2002
Tax take: €1.3bn
Tax cost to healthcare provision: €127m-€178m
Accidental smoking-related fires: €25m-€42m
Then smoking is a plus to the economy.

The cigarette industry backs this up in a cynical manner.
[URL="http://www.rte.ie/news/2001/0717/tobacco.html]"]Smoking population cost effective - Philip Morris[/URL]

snubbleste

I strolled along Newcastle Road earlier and was disappointed not to see anyone loitering with a cigarette nor was there any evidence of same occuring earlier.

Irishgoatman

If the Government, of any time, could afford to ban smoking completely they would have tried it way before now.

They, 100%, need the revenue. Now more than ever!.

mikom

snubbleste wrote: »

I strolled along Newcastle Road earlier and was disappointed not to see anyone loitering with a cigarette

Probably used matches........

piscesgirl1

The terminally ill and psychotic patients are exempt from the ban.

inisboffin

piscesgirl1 wrote: »

The terminally ill and psychotic patients are exempt from the ban.

Really?
If so, do you mean terminally ill and psychiatric patients?

Lord help us all if there are psychotic folk wandering around the grounds of the hospital with axes lighters.

KittyeeTrix

inisboffin wrote: »

Lord help us all if there are psychotic folk wandering around the grounds of the hospital with axes lighters.

Haha inishboffin...........There may be a few psychotic folks wandering around the wards if they can't get out for a smoke:D:p

Mrs OBumble

NomdePlume wrote: »

Horrible attitude.
...
There is virtue in those people. Try suspending the sanctimony for 5 minutes and you might see it.

There is virtue in all people.

But there are not enough funds in any countries health budget to provide optimal treatment for everyone.

Given scarce resources, I don't see the point in wasting them on people who are actively do things that will make them sicker instead of better.

If it takes a drastic hospital policy like this to make people realise, then so be it.


BTW, my mother was told that if she didn't stop smoking, she'd be dead in six months. She stopped, that day. No patches. No tantrums. Just old-fashioned self-control. Since that day, I've had no time for the whiner who say "ohh, it's so difficult". If she could, so can you.

Irishgoatman

JustMary wrote: »

There is virtue in all people.

But there are not enough funds in any countries health budget to provide optimal treatment for everyone.

Given scarce resources, I don't see the point in wasting them on people who are actively do things that will make them sicker instead of better.

If it takes a drastic hospital policy like this to make people realise, then so be it.


BTW, my mother was told that if she didn't stop smoking, she'd be dead in six months. She stopped, that day. No patches. No tantrums. Just old-fashioned self-control. Since that day, I've had no time for the whiner who say "ohh, it's so difficult". If she could, so can you.

I agree with you if the illness is in any way agravated by smoking.

I've been in for operations twice in the last year, both for probs that would not be improved by me giving up smoking, yet both times I have been asked if I will consider giving up the cigarettes. Why? other than it's a question they are told to ask.

If I get a prob that that not smoking can help to solve then, yes, I hope, I will give the habit up.

inisboffin

JustMary wrote: »

There is virtue in all people.


BTW, my mother was told that if she didn't stop smoking, she'd be dead in six months. She stopped, that day. No patches. No tantrums. Just old-fashioned self-control. Since that day, I've had no time for the whiner who say "ohh, it's so difficult". If she could, so can you.

Fair play to your Mother. She did it. Smoking is so complicated though, what people *use* it for, how long they've done it, what they associate it with etc.
A friend of my Mother's was pretty much told the same thing. She tried and failed and tried and failed. And tortured herself trying to as well. She is dead now God rest her. But I have to disagree that it's that simple for everyone. Supposed to be as hard an hard addiction to give (in terms of brain chemistry) as heroin. And you can see how low the kick rate is with that.

RayM

JustMary wrote: »

BTW, my mother was told that if she didn't stop smoking, she'd be dead in six months. She stopped, that day. No patches. No tantrums. Just old-fashioned self-control. Since that day, I've had no time for the whiner who say "ohh, it's so difficult". If she could, so can you.

From the Irish Cancer Society website:

"Quitting smoking can be difficult. And it's a different experience for every smoker: some people succeed on the first try; others try many times before they quit for good."

Sometimes (quite often, in fact), old-fashioned self-control is just not enough to overcome an addiction, and it obviously would be ridiculously simplistic to cite one individual's experience as universal evidence.

The notion that people should - as a result of their inability to beat an addiction at a time of massive physical and emotional stress - be deprived of treatment for a serious illness is frankly repugnant.

uncomplicated

JustMary wrote: »

We expect dog-walkers to pooper-scoop. Don't see why we don't expect smokers to butt-scoop.

Frankly, this is long overdue.

Unlike any other addictive substance, smoking offers no benefits at all, ever, to anyone. If sick people won't give up the fags while they're in hospital, then discharge 'em and give the bed to someone who is prepared to engage in behaviours that will help them get better instead of worse: goodness knows the waiting lists are long enough.

The only exception I'd make is sectioned (or whatever it's called here) psych patients, who may well be addicted because of misguided behaviour management approaches used in the past, involving cigarettes as rewards.

I think maybe this response is one I'd have agreed with if I had not had the personal experience I have had. I do not smoke and I hate this. Sometimes you get characters like my nan who smoked till she passed away at 97. In the last year or two even the doctors agreed there was nothing to gain by her quitting and she got so ill that the only thing she genuinely looked forward to in her day was 'her cig'. She was a frequent patient in GUH and in the end she even demanded to be wheeled out to the gazebo when she no longer could walk to it. She raised her kids and grandkids paid her taxes and was a damn good lady, to suggest that she be literally kicked out of her sick bed because she was a smoker (thankfully she had her full mental capacity so she wouldn't meet the psych clause nor would I want her to) is offensive and limited. The world is so lacking in empathy, I just wanted to try and open attitudes just a little to why it may be a bit unreasonable to ask EVERYONE to abide by such rules. Just for the record though, I don't think it's a lot to ask the able bodied majority of smokers to take a hike out to the gate/ cut down during working hours.

mikom

JustMary wrote: »

But there are not enough funds in any countries health budget to provide optimal treatment for everyone.

Given scarce resources, I don't see the point in wasting them on people who are actively do things that will make them sicker instead of better.

Just a hop, skip, and a jump to eugenics.

Seaneh

yermanoffthetv wrote: »

Any source for that? In fact it appears the opposite is true according to a Dutch study.Burgers and fags for all!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html


I read somewhere (UK article iirc) that someone smoking for 15 years effectively pays for themselves through taxation. At 9.20 a pack id guess €6 of that goes back to the government.

Now I know smokers will agree that it shouldnt be encouraged especially in a hospital but are you going to force an eldery/injured/person on a drip out to the gates a few times a day when its pissin down? Thats just cruel :mad:

This is Ireland, not Holland.


Treating smoking related illnesses takes up about 12-15% of the entire HSE budget.
The current HSE budget is €13,317,000,000

12% of that (conservative estimate of how much it costs us) is €1,598, 040,000.

That is almost €300,000,000 more than the total tac take from tobacco sales.


The figure in that "cost analaysis" of €127,000,000 is for total additional cost every year. As in, new cases, new patients, etc. People dying tends to level that out.

inisboffin

Seaneh wrote: »

Treating smoking related illnesses takes up about 12-15% of the entire HSE budget.
The current HSE budget is €13,317,000,000

12% of that (conservative estimate of how much it costs us) is €1,598, 040,000.

That is almost €300,000,000 more than the total tac take from tobacco sales.


The figure in that "cost analaysis" of €127,000,000 is for total additional cost every year. As in, new cases, new patients, etc. People dying tends to level that out.

Do you have a link for that HSE percentage? Just curious if it factors in any illness which is can be associated with smoking, as opposed to directly caused by? If so, for example, incidences of lung cancer from industrial sources, cancers in non-smokers etc could possibly all be linked in and statistics be skewed. Cancers exacerbated by smoking AND/OR alcohol etc? Does it break down this 12-15% of all HSE spend in the study anywhere?

KittyeeTrix

Just listening to GBFM there and the oncology consultant says they're not sure how they're legally gonna enforce this ridiculous rule if someone repeatedly breaks it....

Like everything else about GUH.... An absolute joke!!! Lol,:D

Ya couldn't make it up... I will be having my cig in the grounds of the hospital for sure now the next time I'm unfortunate to have my parents staying in there.

No way am I trudging out to the front gates:)

Irishgoatman

Seaneh wrote: »

This is Ireland, not Holland.


Treating smoking related illnesses takes up about 12-15% of the entire HSE budget.
The current HSE budget is €13,317,000,000

12% of that (conservative estimate of how much it costs us) is €1,598, 040,000.

That is almost €300,000,000 more than the total tac take from tobacco sales.


The figure in that "cost analaysis" of €127,000,000 is for total additional cost every year. As in, new cases, new patients, etc. People dying tends to level that out.

As I said in an earlier post, when talking about the government take from smokers, you cannot just use cigarette sales. You have to include tax paid by everyone connected with the tobacco industry, from tax paid on the diesel used in the vehicles to deliver them, P.A.Y.E. from all the workers involved and tax on company profits(made on the cigarettes). When you do that you get a true figure.

lilblackdress

We do this in the hospital i work in (in Dublin). There was uproar at first but I must say it does seem to be rather successful and it has only been in place for nearly a year. I also very rarely hear any patients complaining about the smoking ban on the grounds. Most people are in favour of it-smokers and non smokers.

The odd time you'll see someone lighting up at they walk out the main door and you actually really notice the smoke as you are walking in the door! Security staff move people out to the blue line and this works well.

I will admit though it is quite strange seeing people standing around at the entrance with drips etc.

We do offer everyone NRT and to be honest many more people opt for it now instead of having to walk outside so all in all it has worked well for us!

the_syco

KittyeeTrix wrote: »

Again I'll ask>>>>>>>>>>
Why not enforce the rule that smoking is limited to the gazebo thingys which i'd imagine would take the same effort as to enforce the rule of no smoking on the whole property??

It's easier to explain "no smoking anywhere" than it is to explain "only smoking allowed here, here, and possibly here, but not there".

snubbleste

Did anyone know that the hospital employs a Smoking Cessation Officer?

I can imagine her/him wandering up to a patient in true Mrs. Doyle style -
Ah give them up, yeah ye will ye will go on go on go on go on
A perfect example of HSE misdirected funds.

madmannwithabow

JustMary wrote: »

Unlike any other addictive substance, smoking offers no benefits at all, ever, to anyone.

ya because everyone knows that heroin is advised for weight-loss, cocaine is prescribed for those that have a problem with self-esteem and alcohol is recommended for those who drive too safe.

WTF???

that a moderator would conduct themselves with such a lack of respect is, to me, a representation of how worked up ppl get over the topic of SMOKING.

Come on ppl, activate your brain before you activate your inner-anti-smoking-goddess/warrior and come up with legitimate arguments.

i am an ex-smoker of about 6months and hell yes it was hard but i would have walked to the front wall of UCHG(never calling it GUH) to smoke but i think its draconic, bully-boy tactics born from a Nanny-state gone wrong to demand that anyone who is sick enough to be in hospital to walk through the often-heavily-raining car-park to seek comfort from smoking when they might not have much else.

ok rant over - my idea? i work in residential gerontology unit where the residents can smoke indoors(protected by the law on this point :P ) but no one else can smoke on the premises. make sense to anyone else? problem enforcing? the ID band on every patients arm is their back-stage pass to that well ventilated, centrally heated smoking room with the massage chairs, xbox 360 and satellite tv.

thoughts?

ScumLord

JustMary wrote: »

There is virtue in all people.

But there are not enough funds in any countries health budget to provide optimal treatment for everyone.

Given scarce resources, I don't see the point in wasting them on people who are actively do things that will make them sicker instead of better.

There is risk in life and something will get you one way or the other. I do hate this argument as people are basically dictating how others should live their lives and holding health care over their heads to make them do it. If we think that way it'll continue onto drinking, unhealthy food and so on until the good of life is taken away from everyone.

Health care is for the sick, end of storey as far as I'm concerned. If someone wants to live dangerously that's their business, not everyone thinks getting a few more geriatric years is worth not experiencing life in full.