GUH ban smoking on its premises

piscesgirl1

madmannwithabow wrote: »

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?

Thats only right in my opinion, because its a residential unit its technically their home. There are also 2 residential long stay units in merlin park, wonder if the ban applies to them?

Mrs OBumble

ScumLord wrote: »

Health care is for the sick, end of storey as far as I'm concerned.

You do realise that we (like pretty much every other country) cannot afford "enough" health care for everyone.

All I am suggesting is that current smoking status (not former, just current) should explicitly be part of the rationing criteria used for access to inpatient care.

It's not a new, or particularly radical suggestion.

And it's a good deal fairer than some of the other criteria currently used, eg ability to pay, how stroppy your relatives are on your behalf, who you know.

uncomplicated

JustMary wrote: »

You do realise that we (like pretty much every other country) cannot afford "enough" health care for everyone.

All I am suggesting is that current smoking status (not former, just current) should explicitly be part of the rationing criteria used for access to inpatient care.

It's not a new, or particularly radical suggestion.

And it's a good deal fairer than some of the other criteria currently used, eg ability to pay, how stroppy your relatives are on your behalf, who you know.

I think using someones current smoking status as a rationing criteria IS in fact undeniably a new and radical suggestion. I was under the impression that the thread was about a smoking ban not banning health care to individuals... That said I can't imagine that in any country anywhere people have been banned from healthcare for their smoking status (certain treatments that are incompatible with smokers exempt ofc) . Sound, so we also refuse people who are dependent on drugs? Overeaters ? Alcoholics? People who don't do a solid 30 mins exercise a day? What if you don't eat your veg?To my mind what you're suggesting is that that teeny % of people who get struck down by something 100% unrelated to their lifestyle should be treated for and the rest of the mortals can go think about what they've done on the naughty step. Before you start with the rant by the way, there are plenty of ways you can do damage to your body in more socially acceptable ways than smoking, it's just not in fashion at the moment to suggest that anyone other a smoker be left to die. That by the way is what it comes down to.

Irishgoatman

JustMary wrote: »

You do realise that we (like pretty much every other country) cannot afford "enough" health care for everyone.

All I am suggesting is that current smoking status (not former, just current) should explicitly be part of the rationing criteria used for access to inpatient care.

It's not a new, or particularly radical suggestion.

And it's a good deal fairer than some of the other criteria currently used, eg ability to pay, how stroppy your relatives are on your behalf, who you know.

Let me try to understand this, are you suggesting that if, for example, an ambulance is called for because someone is having severe breathing difficulties the emergency operator should ask if that person is a smoker? or should the ambulance pick him/her up and hope the hospital will take the patient?.

I 100% agree that inability to pay should not be a criteria,( and Barak Obama feels the same way), but to even consider withholding initial treatment from someone for any reason whatsoever is, in my opinion, a 1984 Big Brother attitude.

And by the way, on my way in to Merlin Park for an appointment today I was still smoking a cigarette when I crossed the blue line!! I fel so guilty, even though I was in my own car and using the ashtray.:eek:

Mrs OBumble

uncomplicated wrote: »

I think using someones current smoking status as a rationing criteria IS in fact undeniably a new and radical suggestion. I was under the impression that the thread was about a smoking ban not banning health care to individuals... That said I can't imagine that in any country anywhere people have been banned from healthcare for their smoking status (certain treatments that are incompatible with smokers exempt ofc) . Sound, so we also refuse people who are dependent on drugs? Overeaters ? Alcoholics? People who don't do a solid 30 mins exercise a day? What if you don't eat your veg?

You do realise that doctors routinely use criteria like this to decide what treatment to offer people?

Sometimes this is on a clinical / evidnence base ("Someone who's a smoker is x% more likey to have procedure Y fail, so we won't offer Y to Mr Z because of the risk"). Sometimes it's just plain rationing ("we can only afford to do X operations for WWW, so we'll give them to .... ")

Among other reasons, no country (much less hospital or individual doctor) can afford to offer optimal treament to everyone.

And no I'm not (and never was, if you read my posts) suggesting that smoking status is a criteria for ambulance dispatch. That's a whole different idea from using it to decide on continued bed access.

ScumLord

JustMary wrote: »

You do realise that we (like pretty much every other country) cannot afford "enough" health care for everyone.

I don't believe that, the healthcare system is a shambling mess, if administrators and bureaucracy was tidied up I think we'd be in a much better position to give proper health care. Also, everybody doesn't need health care just the sick people.

Mrs OBumble

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't believe that, the healthcare system is a shambling mess, if administrators and bureaucracy was tidied up I think we'd be in a much better position to give proper health care. Also, everybody doesn't need health care just the sick people.

You might like to google "health economics" and learn a little about the worldwide challenges of heathcare-resources distribution.

And consider what "sick" means: is someone who smokes "sick"? Someone who's fat? What about if they're fat 'cos they compulsively overeat? Impotent? Anxious? Depressed? Not so long ago, none of those would have been considered sick-enough to be worth treating. They are now, in many Western countries anyway, at least partly because drug-companies have products to sell.

And there is a pretty well developed school of thought that says that healthcare resources are better spent on prevention-and-promotion (eg GUH's smoking cessation officer) are far more important than treatment: The most important healthcare professionals that I know are the folks who run the water supply. The 2nd most important are the lads who take our rubbish away. And all of them are providing services to well people. As are the public-health nurses who do vaccinations and well-child-health-checks.

Taking this back on topic, I'm glad that GUH have implemented the campus-wide ban, precisely because it makes people stop and think about the health impacts of their behaviour, and because it will make them smoke less.

snubbleste

I saw a smoking patient today. My first sighting! She was all alone at the gate in Newcastle Park. I stopped and asked her if she had been told to go 'outside' and what she thought about it. She didn't have much to say. She probably thought I was a nosy do-gooder. Maybe I should stop harrassing smokers.

piscesgirl1

Funny how a thread originally about the smoking ban in GUH, ended up as a thread about healthcare and politics etc. My first day tomorrow with the smoking ban introduced- wish me luck ha ha!:D:D:D

uncomplicated

JustMary wrote: »

You do realise that doctors routinely use criteria like this to decide what treatment to offer people?

Sometimes this is on a clinical / evidnence base ("Someone who's a smoker is x% more likey to have procedure Y fail, so we won't offer Y to Mr Z because of the risk"). Sometimes it's just plain rationing ("we can only afford to do X operations for WWW, so we'll give them to .... ")

Among other reasons, no country (much less hospital or individual doctor) can afford to offer optimal treament to everyone.

And no I'm not (and never was, if you read my posts) suggesting that smoking status is a criteria for ambulance dispatch. That's a whole different idea from using it to decide on continued bed access.

Ok you're bearing the hallmarks of somebody trying to whack a whole lot of schools of thinking into one argument. I actually stated that treatments which were incompatible with smokers exempt ofc-meaning I wasn't including them in the argument. That's because I had assumed that you'd know the difference between withholding treatment from smokers because its not economically viable and a genuine medical contra-indication for a treatment.
I should add here that contra-indications for treating a smoker are secondary diseases such as for example C.O.P.D. which arise in non smokers too though less frequently. So no nobody is ever a 100% contra-indication to a treatment solely because they are a smoker, they are accessed the way a non smoker is and their general health is compared to suggested care pathways in a holistic manner. So YOU do realise ...no I won't say that because I know you don't and to insinuate you should would be patronising...that your statement was wrong. The only exception to that method of accessing a patient who is a smoker is if the treating doctor is in a position to refuse to treat smokers on the basis of his/her personal opinion. Some do take this option. As for your health economics, well yeah it makes more financial sense not to treat a smoker over a non smoker statistically, but there's a whole lot of crap this country can't afford and I suggest that you find some other stuff to cut before healthcare.
I also think the point about the ambulances was fair, if you're suggesting that we don't have the money to treat smokers, might as well ask them at dispatch and if they are save the drivers the journey. It'd make much more fiscal sense not to spend the money on sending it out if you're not going to treat them when you finally do get them to the hospital.
The resources are a huge problem for the health service, beyond a doubt but there's no point in attacking the people who need it, our education systems at breaking point too should we start weeding out kids who play too much computer games to make smaller class ratios for the ones who get it right? Face it, there are some rights, healthcare and eduction being two that you just don't mess with. Free for all across the board no exceptions no excuses and if we can't demand that in return for our taxes then we might as well give up on civilised society.

madmannwithabow

JustMary wrote: »

You do realise that doctors routinely use criteria like this to decide what treatment to offer people?

Sometimes this is on a clinical / evidnence base ("Someone who's a smoker is x% more likey to have procedure Y fail, so we won't offer Y to Mr Z because of the risk"). Sometimes it's just plain rationing ("we can only afford to do X operations for WWW, so we'll give them to .... ")

Among other reasons, no country (much less hospital or individual doctor) can afford to offer optimal treament to everyone.

And no I'm not (and never was, if you read my posts) suggesting that smoking status is a criteria for ambulance dispatch. That's a whole different idea from using it to decide on continued bed access.

JustMary wrote: »

You do realise that we (like pretty much every other country) cannot afford "enough" health care for everyone.

All I am suggesting is that current smoking status (not former, just current) should explicitly be part of the rationing criteria used for access to inpatient care.

It's not a new, or particularly radical suggestion.

And it's a good deal fairer than some of the other criteria currently used, eg ability to pay, how stroppy your relatives are on your behalf, who you know.

please dont be feeding the trolls here guys n girls. can we get back to the topic of patients being forced to go off hospital grounds to smoke and away from "youre not good enough to care about" selective care management. thank you

JustMary wrote: »

You might like to google "health economics" and learn a little about the worldwide challenges of heathcare-resources distribution.

Another proof, as if we needed it that a little information is a dangerous thing.

Irishgoatman

piscesgirl1 wrote: »

Funny how a thread originally about the smoking ban in GUH, ended up as a thread about healthcare and politics etc. My first day tomorrow with the smoking ban introduced- wish me luck ha ha!:D:D:D

People can't be expected to give an opinion without giving their reasons why they feel a certain way, then off we go!.

Don't know if you are a patient who smokes or a healthcare worker who will have to put up with irate patients who want to smoke, whichever it is, the best of luck. Keep smiling is the only answer:).

And by the way, I smoke and I'll be taking up bed space in Merlin Park (again) in a few weeks. Hope no-one objects. (I know you won't really).

Doc Ruby

JustMary wrote: »

You might like to google "health economics" and learn a little about the worldwide challenges of heathcare-resources distribution.

As far as Ireland's healthcare goes, its a bloated monstrosity, we're paying more per capita than countries with far better healthcare. There's a huge middle management problem.

On topic, stop smoking ye tits.

ben.schlomo

Agree with the ban, why should people who dont smoke have to put up with it on hospital grounds, i saw a doctor on the news last week from UCHG saying how smoke was blowing into his office/treatment area and why should he and his patients have to deal with this. If a smoker is in hospital then too bad if they have walk a few extra steps to have a fag, might do them some good.

Irishgoatman

It's all very well for Doc Ruby to say " stop smoking ye tits" ( I'm sure he could have phrased that a little better), and for ben.schlomo to suggest that walking a " few extra steps might do them some good" (hospital block to the main road?) but some things are not always possible.

With both of my visits last year and the up-coming op. I couldn't walk that far to save my life!. As I said in an earlier post, I don't bother with a smoke when an in-patient (but just try taking my cigs away when I'm at the computer!!) but not everyone is the same, I'm pleased to say. So from a personal view point I don't mind the ban. but I do feel sorry for other people.

Hospital staff like piscesgirl1, shouldnt be expected to spend most, if not all, of a coffee break walking down to the main road for a smoke.
Workers in most other types of employment just walk out of the door and are able to light up, so she is almost being forced to give up smoking and this side of the ban I don't agree with.

Just as an after thought, does anyone really want to be treated, in hospital, by someone who is just thinking of the end of the shift so as to be able to go home and smoke?. They are under enough pressure without more being put on them.

yermanoffthetv

ben.schlomo wrote: »

Agree with the ban, why should people who dont smoke have to put up with it on hospital grounds, i saw a doctor on the news last week from UCHG saying how smoke was blowing into his office/treatment area and why should he and his patients have to deal with this. If a smoker is in hospital then too bad if they have walk a few extra steps to have a fag, might do them some good.

Then give them somewhere to go out of the way. If we took that callous attitude to everything the world would be a rotten place to live. I bet if you listed your lifestyle habits I could find something I could condesend. whats wrong with haveing an area out the back? (enclosed so it doesnt offend the folks who are a little precious to the smell of smoke)

ben.schlomo

yermanoffthetv wrote: »

Then give them somewhere to go out of the way. If we took that callous attitude to everything the world would be a rotten place to live. I bet if you listed your lifestyle habits I could find something I could condesend. whats wrong with haveing an area out the back? (enclosed so it doesnt offend the folks who are a little precious to the smell of smoke)

Wouldnt disagree with you at all. Im simply giving my opinion on the current arrangement.

Irishgoatman

ben.schlomo wrote: »

Agree with the ban, why should people who dont smoke have to put up with it on hospital grounds, i saw a doctor on the news last week from UCHG saying how smoke was blowing into his office/treatment area and why should he and his patients have to deal with this. If a smoker is in hospital then too bad if they have walk a few extra steps to have a fag, might do them some good.

Can you tell us what news programme this Doctor was on please?, (most tv news items can be found on-line) as I'd like to find it and see for myself just how bad he thought things were. Was this a regular problem for him, for example or a one off.

ben.schlomo

Irishgoatman wrote: »

Can you tell us what news programme this Doctor was on please?, (most tv news items can be found on-line) as I'd like to find it and see for myself just how bad he thought things were. Was this a regular problem for him, for example or a one off.

The six one on rte one last week, unfortunately i dont know what day, it was a short newspiece by Eileen Magner/Magnier on the fact that the ban had been brought in in Galway and previously Waterford, actually come to think of it it would have been whatever day the ban started.

Irishgoatman

ben.schlomo wrote: »

The six one on rte one last week, unfortunately i dont know what day, it was a short newspiece by Eileen Magner/Magnier on the fact that the ban had been brought in in Galway and previously Waterford, actually come to think of it it would have been whatever day the ban started.

Found the item, thanks.

I totally agree with the Doctor, that should not be allowed to happen.

What puzzles me though is that all the clinics that I've been to at UCHG (and I've been to a few I'm sorry to say) have been a long walk from the smoking area at the front of the building. Are there other smoking areas that I haven't seen?.

I can understand that what he said definitely applies to the outpatient clinics at Merlin Park.

snubbleste

Irishgoatman wrote: »

..
What puzzles me though is that all the clinics that I've been to at UCHG (and I've been to a few I'm sorry to say) have been a long walk from the smoking area at the front of the building. Are there other smoking areas that I haven't seen?.

Yes, anywhere that was not covered by a roof of some sort.

Irishgoatman

snubbleste wrote: »

Yes, anywhere that was not covered by a roof of some sort.

Yes ok.

Let me re-phrase it.

Any DESIGNATED smoking areas where smoke could waft into open clinic windows.

KittyeeTrix

Whole load of BS....... Smoke going into windows, newborn babies being harried down smoke filled corridors..:rolleyes:

Good god, some have made it out to sound like the entrance to hell.

Ban the smoking to an area out the back away from the windows and babies and then everyone should be happy:)

snubbleste

As per my original post, there were roughly twelve smokers (some in pyjamas) strung along the footpath on Newcastle road this morning puffing away.
I could'nt help feeling that it was an advertisement for tobacco..

snubbleste

Cllr Conneely wrote:

Speaking at this months regional health forum meeting, Cllr Conneely said that he had seen patients hiding in the bushes as he approached Merlin Park hospital last evening.
http://www.galwaynews.ie/25948-call-relax-smoking-ban-city-hospitals

He must've been disappointed that all he saw was people smoking in the bushes.
Also interesting to see that some exceptions are being made for some patients, so it is not a complete ban after all.

kevin65

snubbleste wrote: »

As per my original post, there were roughly twelve smokers (some in pyjamas) strung along the footpath on Newcastle road this morning puffing away.
I could'nt help feeling that it was an advertisement for tobacco..

Saw the same yesterday. I don't condone smoking but it is a bit sad to see old people in their pyjamas on the side of the road outside the hospital grounds having a smoke

thesandeman

Think its the first thing Ive ever agreed with Conneely on.

snubbleste

snubbleste wrote: »

He must've been disappointed that all he saw was people smoking in the bushes.
Also interesting to see that some exceptions are being made for some patients, so it is not a complete ban after all.

There has to be exceptions. For instance patients in unit 6 (long stay geriatrics) have an a smoking room inside as the unit is their home so they are 100% entitled to smoke under law.

biko

Let them vape.

snubbleste

Is this being enforced at all?
I only see some workers outside the gates now. No patients.