5 ms·

I think there is a time and a place to nag people about changing their habits, and it is absolutely not when they are at their weakest and most vulnerable.

reflexive 10y ago
Which is why smoking in hospitals is OK?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- SilasX 10y ago
  That's restricted because it ruins the air of random bystanders, many of whom are in sensitive condition. The case for smoking bans in hospitals would be a lot weaker if people confined their smoking to a scuba apparatus (sorry, redundant). And the case for food restrictions would be a lot stronger if my consumption of soda at a hospital caused sugar to be injected into random bystanders' bloodstreams.
  - reflexive 10y ago
    the case for food restrictions would be a lot stronger if my consumption of soda at a hospital caused sugar to be injected There's no proposal here to restrict consumption. It's the hospital's choice what they want to sell at their own concessions. They can't sell every possible beverage, so it doesn't make sense to sell sugary ones at the expense of healthier alternatives. Just like you need to bring your own cigarettes to the hospital if you want to smoke - don't expect the staff to provide them.
    - SilasX 10y ago
      Sorry, I should have said "hospital menu policy restrictions". (It seems like a pedantic point anyway; the fact that you're under no obligation to provide X does not imply that you don't have a policy restricting your provision of X. Plus, the comparison was to hospital smoking bans not e.g. cigarette vending)
      - reflexive 10y ago
        Last time I was at a hospital and wanted to buy a snack from the cafeteria, nearly all the options were loaded with sugar (coke, ice cream, etc). I'd say that non-sugary options are being subject to "hospital menu policy restrictions" at this point.
        SilasX 10y ago
        Hah! Very true! There are probably several factors that influence what foods they offer and which results in their current general policies about what to stock. It probably makes more sense to first audit what those factors are and why they exist; otherwise, additional restrictions are more likely to force them into more expensive options since they'd have to obey the existing (probably ridiculous) constraints.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    > And the case for food restrictions would be a lot stronger if my consumption of soda at a hospital caused sugar to be injected into random bystanders' bloodstreams. Obese people and people with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes place considerable strain on primary and secondary NHS care, and thus someone's dietary choices do affect someone else's healthcare.
    - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
      Refined sugar is an absolutely lethal addictive drug with no plausible nutritional justification. The health costs - from dental problems to heart disease to diabetes to other fatal illnesses - are beyond tragic. My dentist told me she regularly has to extract some or all of the milk teeth from kids because they've been rotted by sugary soft drinks. She doesn't like doing it and the parents don't like watching it done. But cause and effect is a thing and she's at the wrong end of it. Ending massive sugar addiction is going to be the next big social project for medicine.
      - grzm 10y ago
        With such a strong, unequivocal, (strident?) statement, I'm honestly curious how you expect people to respond. People who already agree with you might get more energized. Those who disagree are likely to either (a) dismiss you because they know any discussion is likely going to result in a flame war or (b) jump in because they like the heat. Those that are concerned about sugar might agree, but hesitate to participate in the discussion because of the flame war potential. Similarly those who are interested in learning more. You're also making factual claims without providing citations. Like I said, honest question. What's motivating your phrasing?
        reflexive 10y ago
        With such a strong, unequivocal, (strident?) statement, I'm honestly curious how you expect people to respond. I would guess, the first time a person comes across this type of statement, they would simply dismiss it. After hearing similar sentiments from 10 or 20 people, they may start to feel bothered and wonder if they're doing something wrong; if they ought to do research to justify their existing behavior. Then they may come something like the New Nordic Diet, and find it has an aesthetic appeal; plus they are also primed to appreciate that it addresses the excess sugar problem. This offers a way forward. Alternatively, they simply come to terms with the fact that other people disapprove of their lifestyle choices. It's just as important to be able to withstand social pressure as it is to eat healthy.
- jonwachob91 10y ago
  It's not at Florida Hospital Orlando, for patients and employee's, ANYWHERE on the campus (including that tiny tree that sits on the lake opposite any patients). Employee's caught smoking on campus lose their health insurance (insurer's policy not FH Orlando's). Not sure what the written reg is for patients, I just know security will show up if you are smoking and escort you back to your room or off the campus.
  - kome 10y ago
    > Employee's caught smoking on campus lose their health insurance (insurer's policy not FH Orlando's). gosh, that's bad. a fine would be more appropriate.
NamTaf 10y ago
On the contrary, when people are directly faced with the consequences of poor health decisions it is often a very good time to reinforce the cause and effect that many gloss over because it's not clear and present at the time.
- analog31 10y ago
  I'm of two minds about this, after spending a couple days in the hospital. Without being too specific, they put me on the special diet related to my condition. A person with limited cooking skills and dietary knowledge might have concluded from the food I received, that healthy eating was an unsustainable form of suffering. Everything uniformly tasted like burnt cardboard. I choked it down because I knew that I needed the energy, and counted the hours until I would be released.
- gozur88 10y ago
  Not everyone in the hospital is there because of "poor health decisions", and a sugary drink every once in awhile won't kill you. I've never understood the urge people have to dictate what other people do right down to what they can eat.
  - NLips 10y ago
    I've never understood the urge people have to dictate what other people do right down to what they must sell. What's wrong with a hospital refusing to sell goods that are detrimental to the health of its visitors?
    - gozur88 10y ago
      These are state-run hospitals, right?
  - NamTaf 10y ago
    I won't bother making the wide array of arguments, they're already well and truly made during discussions of sugar taxes that various nations around the world are considering. For US readers, many other nations don't quite have the same fierce focus on 'our freedoms' and so there's far more acceptance of government interventions for the 'greater good'.
DanBC 10y ago
It's for staff too, and the NHS is Europe's largest employer.

reflexive 10y ago

Which is why smoking in hospitals is OK?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
SilasX 10y ago
That's restricted because it ruins the air of random bystanders, many of whom are in sensitive condition. The case for smoking bans in hospitals would be a lot weaker if people confined their smoking to a scuba apparatus (sorry, redundant). And the case for food restrictions would be a lot stronger if my consumption of soda at a hospital caused sugar to be injected into random bystanders' bloodstreams.
- reflexive 10y ago
  the case for food restrictions would be a lot stronger if my consumption of soda at a hospital caused sugar to be injected There's no proposal here to restrict consumption. It's the hospital's choice what they want to sell at their own concessions. They can't sell every possible beverage, so it doesn't make sense to sell sugary ones at the expense of healthier alternatives. Just like you need to bring your own cigarettes to the hospital if you want to smoke - don't expect the staff to provide them.
  - SilasX 10y ago
    Sorry, I should have said "hospital menu policy restrictions". (It seems like a pedantic point anyway; the fact that you're under no obligation to provide X does not imply that you don't have a policy restricting your provision of X. Plus, the comparison was to hospital smoking bans not e.g. cigarette vending)
    - reflexive 10y ago
      Last time I was at a hospital and wanted to buy a snack from the cafeteria, nearly all the options were loaded with sugar (coke, ice cream, etc). I'd say that non-sugary options are being subject to "hospital menu policy restrictions" at this point.
      - SilasX 10y ago
        Hah! Very true! There are probably several factors that influence what foods they offer and which results in their current general policies about what to stock. It probably makes more sense to first audit what those factors are and why they exist; otherwise, additional restrictions are more likely to force them into more expensive options since they'd have to obey the existing (probably ridiculous) constraints.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > And the case for food restrictions would be a lot stronger if my consumption of soda at a hospital caused sugar to be injected into random bystanders' bloodstreams. Obese people and people with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes place considerable strain on primary and secondary NHS care, and thus someone's dietary choices do affect someone else's healthcare.
  - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
    Refined sugar is an absolutely lethal addictive drug with no plausible nutritional justification. The health costs - from dental problems to heart disease to diabetes to other fatal illnesses - are beyond tragic. My dentist told me she regularly has to extract some or all of the milk teeth from kids because they've been rotted by sugary soft drinks. She doesn't like doing it and the parents don't like watching it done. But cause and effect is a thing and she's at the wrong end of it. Ending massive sugar addiction is going to be the next big social project for medicine.
    - grzm 10y ago
      With such a strong, unequivocal, (strident?) statement, I'm honestly curious how you expect people to respond. People who already agree with you might get more energized. Those who disagree are likely to either (a) dismiss you because they know any discussion is likely going to result in a flame war or (b) jump in because they like the heat. Those that are concerned about sugar might agree, but hesitate to participate in the discussion because of the flame war potential. Similarly those who are interested in learning more. You're also making factual claims without providing citations. Like I said, honest question. What's motivating your phrasing?
      - reflexive 10y ago
        With such a strong, unequivocal, (strident?) statement, I'm honestly curious how you expect people to respond. I would guess, the first time a person comes across this type of statement, they would simply dismiss it. After hearing similar sentiments from 10 or 20 people, they may start to feel bothered and wonder if they're doing something wrong; if they ought to do research to justify their existing behavior. Then they may come something like the New Nordic Diet, and find it has an aesthetic appeal; plus they are also primed to appreciate that it addresses the excess sugar problem. This offers a way forward. Alternatively, they simply come to terms with the fact that other people disapprove of their lifestyle choices. It's just as important to be able to withstand social pressure as it is to eat healthy.
jonwachob91 10y ago
It's not at Florida Hospital Orlando, for patients and employee's, ANYWHERE on the campus (including that tiny tree that sits on the lake opposite any patients). Employee's caught smoking on campus lose their health insurance (insurer's policy not FH Orlando's). Not sure what the written reg is for patients, I just know security will show up if you are smoking and escort you back to your room or off the campus.
- kome 10y ago
  > Employee's caught smoking on campus lose their health insurance (insurer's policy not FH Orlando's). gosh, that's bad. a fine would be more appropriate.

NamTaf 10y ago

On the contrary, when people are directly faced with the consequences of poor health decisions it is often a very good time to reinforce the cause and effect that many gloss over because it's not clear and present at the time.

analog31 10y ago
I'm of two minds about this, after spending a couple days in the hospital. Without being too specific, they put me on the special diet related to my condition. A person with limited cooking skills and dietary knowledge might have concluded from the food I received, that healthy eating was an unsustainable form of suffering. Everything uniformly tasted like burnt cardboard. I choked it down because I knew that I needed the energy, and counted the hours until I would be released.
gozur88 10y ago
Not everyone in the hospital is there because of "poor health decisions", and a sugary drink every once in awhile won't kill you. I've never understood the urge people have to dictate what other people do right down to what they can eat.
- NLips 10y ago
  I've never understood the urge people have to dictate what other people do right down to what they must sell. What's wrong with a hospital refusing to sell goods that are detrimental to the health of its visitors?
  - gozur88 10y ago
    These are state-run hospitals, right?
- NamTaf 10y ago
  I won't bother making the wide array of arguments, they're already well and truly made during discussions of sugar taxes that various nations around the world are considering. For US readers, many other nations don't quite have the same fierce focus on 'our freedoms' and so there's far more acceptance of government interventions for the 'greater good'.

DanBC 10y ago

It's for staff too, and the NHS is Europe's largest employer.