Smoking and the use of tobacco is the single most preventable cause of illness and death in North America. More than 400,000 Americans and 40,000 Canadians die every year from tobacco-related illnesses.
In the United States, someone dies every 72 seconds from smoking cigarettes, cigars or pipes.
Hospitals should not have designated smoking areas. On the contrary, the director, board members and staff should do everything possible to prevent those within their walls or on their premises from smoking.
Many of the patients are likely in hospital as a result of tobacco use. Studies have shown that as much as 75% of coronary artery disease may be caused by smoking.
Tobacco addiction increases the risk of cancer, respiratory diseases, dangers during pregnancy, gastrointestinal problems and tooth and gum problems.
Smokers also suffer more sleeping problems, migraine headaches, coughs and colds, high blood pressure, sinus congestion and disabling fatigue than nonsmokers. There is really nothing positive to say about the use of tobacco.
Hospitals exist to fight illness. Why would they provide an area in which an activity causing illness is permitted? It just doesn't make sense.
Who would be affected if a general ban on smoking in hospitals were enforced ?
First of all, the patients would be unable to smoke. This will only hasten their recovery. If they are severely addicted, they could be offered a patch program while they're in residence, to ease withdrawal symptoms. Who knows? The experience might be the means of helping them overcome their addiction permanently.
The visitors would have to refrain from smoking. Normal hospital visits should be brief anyway, and the sight of a friend or loved one in poor health should distract their attention from their habit, at least temporarily. They are free to leave anytime.
The staff could not smoke: doctors, nurses, cleaners, orderlies and others. The brightest among these groups will not be addicted anyway. They have seen firsthand the results of the addiction: the pain, suffering, death, and the distraught relatives of patients with smoking-related disease.
The addicts will have to take their breaks in their vehicles or perhaps lounging against a lamppost on the street. Perhaps the associated inconvenience or the onset of inclement weather will be the means of freeing them from the slavery of their nicotine addiction. This would indeed be a blessing in disguise.
In the United States, smoking bans fall under the jurisdiction of each state. In Canada, they are regulated by each province.
In Ontario, where I live, smoking is banned in workplaces and indoors at all public places. A recent law forbids smoking in cars while a child is present. In an enclosed area like a vehicle a child will inhale more concentrated doses of secondhand smoke, and this is harmful to his respiratory system, as well as to other parts of his still-growing body.
For those who wish to quit smoking, there are many aids available today. As well as patches, there are pills, lozenges, inhalers, chewing gum, and smoking cessation programs. Family doctors are knowledgeable about available resources and are glad to help each patient find the best means to leave his addiction far behind.
Instead of having a designated smoking area, each hospital should have an area dedicated to the liberation of those still enslaved by the nicotine demon. This space could include information pamphlets, samples of available aids to kick the habit, a recovered addict and a encouraging nurse-practioner to dispense enthusiasm and courage to those wishing to quit.
It's true, the hospital may be losing future business. Nurses may soon have the time and energy to care for their patients the way they would like to. Doctors, no longer overworked, may remember your name from one visit to the next. Who knows? Those seriously ill may even be able to get a house call.
Is anyone about to argue, that the sooner we dispense with the use of tobacco products not only in hospitals but everywhere else too, the better?
No comments:
Post a Comment