(Note: the above cartoon is very much "tongue in cheek.")
St Luke's Hospital and Health Network has announced that they will start screening employees for nicotine use. New employees must test negative on nicotine test to be eligible for employment. Current workers will not be affected by the ban (for now). Pennsylvania is one of 20(!) states that allow no-nicotine hiring policies. St. Luke's claims that the policy is intended so that the health care providers (them being a hospital, after all) are providing a good example to patients. It is also intended to lower health care costs.
Of course, this has caused a whole ripple affect throughout the news networks and the web. Some people ask: What is next? Salt? All alcohol use, even when off-duty? Obesity? Trans fats?
But is this a slippery slope argument or is this a valid argument?
I personally believe it is a valid argument. Nicotine is a legal substance. It is illegal to discriminate based on religion, color, or sex. (Supposedly, though we all know that it doesn't always work out like that...and that reverse-discrimination is becoming a larger problem over time). Why should smokers be discriminated against?
Should people who are obese be discriminated against? St. Luke's could make a similar argument about obesity. Again, refusing to higher people who are obese would provide a better example to their patients, and again, would lower health care costs.
What do you think? Valid argument? Slippery slope? Is it all right to refuse to hire nicotine users? Obese people? Those who eat trans fat in unhealthy quantities? Salt-users? Alcohol drinkers?
Articles used as reference:
"Pennsylvania Hospital to Stop Hiring Smokers"
Pennsylvania Hospital Group Won't Hire Nicotine Users
St Luke's Hospital and Health Network has announced that they will start screening employees for nicotine use. New employees must test negative on nicotine test to be eligible for employment. Current workers will not be affected by the ban (for now). Pennsylvania is one of 20(!) states that allow no-nicotine hiring policies. St. Luke's claims that the policy is intended so that the health care providers (them being a hospital, after all) are providing a good example to patients. It is also intended to lower health care costs.
Of course, this has caused a whole ripple affect throughout the news networks and the web. Some people ask: What is next? Salt? All alcohol use, even when off-duty? Obesity? Trans fats?
But is this a slippery slope argument or is this a valid argument?
I personally believe it is a valid argument. Nicotine is a legal substance. It is illegal to discriminate based on religion, color, or sex. (Supposedly, though we all know that it doesn't always work out like that...and that reverse-discrimination is becoming a larger problem over time). Why should smokers be discriminated against?
Should people who are obese be discriminated against? St. Luke's could make a similar argument about obesity. Again, refusing to higher people who are obese would provide a better example to their patients, and again, would lower health care costs.
What do you think? Valid argument? Slippery slope? Is it all right to refuse to hire nicotine users? Obese people? Those who eat trans fat in unhealthy quantities? Salt-users? Alcohol drinkers?
Articles used as reference:
"Pennsylvania Hospital to Stop Hiring Smokers"
Pennsylvania Hospital Group Won't Hire Nicotine Users
