4 ms·

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.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

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.