Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 02 July 2004 11:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Webster I do NOT wish to re-re-re-open the smoking debate, and my own views on smoking bans etc. are well documented in previous threads. However, despite recommendations for a balanced approach, our (NHS) Board have called for a complete prohibition (ie even the smoking room will be withdrawn) from next March. The ban will apply to staff, visitors and patients alike. The proposed Policy would allow staff to withdraw smoking materials from patients who insist on ignoring the policy by lighting up on the premises. There are those who believe that to do this would be in breach of Human Rights legislation (even if they got them back to go outside for a fag), though others would say that apart from withdrawing medical treatment and ejecting offenders from the premises (which, through the right process, IS legal but not exactly desirable), what other sanctions can be placed on a patient persistently smoking in a ward or toilet? As an added complication, some of these are elderly patients in long-term care and are not capable of leaving the premises unaided for a smoke. Legal arguments on the Human Rights issues please. The only one I have so far is that if the ban and confiscation are necessary in order for us to fulfil our obligations under HSWA, then as pre-existing primary H&S legislation it takes precedence over the Human Rights Act. Thanks John
Admin  
#2 Posted : 02 July 2004 12:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Rob Todd There are no provisions under any health & Safety legislation (other than to provide an area within a rest room which is free of smokeand one or two areas that prohibit naked flames i.e. where explosive or imfammable substances are located). Therefore any H&S argument based on legal grounds is spurious with the exception of the bracketed area above!!
Admin  
#3 Posted : 02 July 2004 12:27:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert Paterson Interesting one this. What about Employers providing a safe place of work (HASWA 1974 SECTION 2(2)(e)). Is there not a legal argument here. Listening to debate on T.V. last night about smoking in public places. I would have thought that the above quoted law would be enough for employers to implement smoking ban in public places, or maybe I am wrong. I am not a smoker and do not have predudical views on it. Regards Robert Paterson
Admin  
#4 Posted : 02 July 2004 12:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Karen Todd Hi John, Apparently the Human Rights Comission has said that smoking is not a human right: http://www.scoop.co.nz/m...tories/PO0311/S00147.htm Karen
Admin  
#5 Posted : 02 July 2004 12:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By james mackie John, An employer has a duty to protect all employees from the potentially dangerous effects of smoking. Therefore if you have a smoking room that has to be cleaned, can you protect the cleaner (and other staff) from the effects of cigarette smoke? My answer would be no therefore smokers will have to smoke outside. A divided room is not suitable, (it is like having a no p'ing area in a swimming pool)because everyone will get some eventually. This includes patients, staff, visitors etc. You can then take reasonable measures to enforce this which after a verbal warning would be to remove smoking materials from patients. Obviously give them their cancer sticks back when they are discharged.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 02 July 2004 12:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter Your query I assume to be centred around dealing with persistent offenders? The Human Rights Act doesn't apply with respect to any perceived 'right to smoke', as any measure taken to improve health or safety is specifically excluded from the Act. Presumably then you are concerned with rights in relation to confiscating property. It might help if you broaden the argument to include other items - e.g. persistent use of a mobile 'phone, annoyance to others caused by personal stereos,visitors bringing in fish & Chips/take aways for patients (yes it happens) etc. Perhaps easier to draft a Policy dealing with confiscation of all inappropriate items, as opposed to a focus on one particular item?
Admin  
#7 Posted : 02 July 2004 12:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geof Question 1 - are patients or staff or visitors committing a crime if they smoke? Question 2 - if full air conditioning to a smoking room was installed would this make any difference to the answers already given. I suggest the answers are no and no, and confirms a bias, to me at least, against a section of society who have not committed an offence of any sort.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 02 July 2004 12:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Rob Todd Once again people try to make up the law by trying to (mis)quote the HSAWA in dealing with the smoking issue. I have replied with the legal argument - there is no legal argument that allows for this type of interference to an individual. The other point to remember is that there has been no CLINICAL confirmation that "passive smoking" causes ANY adverse effects in non-smokers. All the rest is conjecture and where ASH is concerned - lies. Why not bring in prohibition - it seemed to (not) work in the US. Why don't Doctors just ban anything that has a potential to cause harm - climbing frames, sugar, cars, peanuts, alcohol etc. On any other medical issue, clinical tests would have to be carried out and verified by science not emotion. On a less emotive point and directly towards the question - how are you going to remove said items from the individual? If you lay a finger on them you may be arrested for assault and battery. Is everyone going to be searched on entry and if so by whom and to what extent (going through pockets, complete pat down). What if the individual refuses to be searched - are they then refused medical assistance. The Doctors think they own the NHS - they don't. They are our employees.
Admin  
#9 Posted : 02 July 2004 13:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Adams Just to look at the other side of the coin..........if you forcibly remove my property against my will whilst I am in your care, would it be reasonable for me to treat it as an act of theft? A very slippery slope, I think. Paul
Admin  
#10 Posted : 02 July 2004 13:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter It's all getting very emotive again.Surely a Hospital has to have a Smoking Policy of some sort! We haven't discussed the obvious, such as oxygen piped around the building, fire risks, or indeed the basic care the smoker might owe to the asthmatic patient or premature baby. Or do you favour that enduring image of the doting grandparent cooing over the cot with a cigarette hanging from their lips? The original message discussed the 'total ban' stance of the local health board, and perhaps this is the issue. I am sure that all we smokers accept that there are places where we shouldn't smoke.Then again if a 40 a day octagenarian has to spend his last years in a care home, is it really fair to deny him that pleasure in his final years? Careful also of using the word "premises" in your policy - this includes outside to the boundaries of the property! p.s. Is that story of the employee sacked for smoking in his car in the company car park truth or urban myth?
Admin  
#11 Posted : 02 July 2004 13:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By james mackie geof, an employee may be committing a crime if they smoke at work under HSWA section 7 if they are not cooperating with their employer.
Admin  
#12 Posted : 02 July 2004 13:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Karen Todd Obviously I don't want to say to much on an open forum, but I have a relative who had to attend an inquest into the case of someone who set themselves on fire having a sneaky fag on a ward whilst they were on oxygen, received almost 100% burns and died some time later. Relative in question rushed into the room, turned the oxygen off, put out the flames on the person and rushed the person to resus. Extremely traumatic experience for all involved, much counselling needed, absenteeism from work ensued and relative had to attend inquest whilst pregnant and with high blood pressure. And, as you will imagine, negligence was cried. Karen
Admin  
#13 Posted : 02 July 2004 13:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geof James - in the general context of this question it is not illegal to smoke in the UK.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.