Does being overweight/smoking make us look bad?

[jakeislove]

The irony.

A poll of allo users would show 60-90h weeks, 3-4h of sleep per night, nutrition consisting mostly of baked/packaged/frozen goods, little exercise, constant stress, symptoms of several major mental health conditions and more, yet having >25% bodyfat would singlehandedly disqualify someone from providing medical advice in their eyes.

OK hun. OK.

At least you'll have a little empathy when hearing similar excuses from patients about their lack of diet and exercise.

The same excuse of being too busy for regular exercise and diet will be used from pre-med to Attending, LOL!

Diet and exercise are a priority, or not.

Being overweight doesn't mean someone can't be a great doctor. You just have to own the extent to which perception might render some advice useless.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[seminoma]

It has to do with principals. It's obvious to anyone that knows anything about health that being obese isn't healthy. Every physician knows that being obese is unhealthy, and for a physician to advise patients to not be obese while not attempting to remain healthy themselves is hypocritical. It has nothing to do with having experienced the situation themselves, but rather with following the beliefs and advice they are trying to have their patients follow.

Any half decent doctor would include a statement like "I know it's difficult..." or "most people need to try more than once before they are successful at [smoking cessation, weight loss, etc]". So the idea that a fat doctor telling a fat patient "you need to lose weight and here are some things that can help" is hypocritical doesn't jive with me. You don't have to be better than someone at something to teach or provide good advice/guidance. Do you think any of the sports coaches at the professional or even college level can outperform their athletes?

Don't get me wrong, I understand the way people think. I just don't think the way thing are is the same as the way things ought to be.

 

[jakeislove]

Any half decent doctor would include a statement like "I know it's difficult..." or "most people need to try more than once before they are successful at [smoking cessation, weight loss, etc]". So the idea that a fat doctor telling a fat patient "you need to lose weight and here are some things that can help" is hypocritical doesn't jive with me. You don't have to be better than someone at something to teach or provide good advice/guidance. Do you think any of the sports coaches at the professional or even college level can outperform their athletes?

Don't get me wrong, I understand the way people think. I just don't think the way thing are is the same as the way things ought to be.

I've worked with a few fat doctors who would say 'You need to lose weight. So do I. Here are some things I'm trying'. They'd go on to talk about how hard some of the changes were, results, etc... Another was known to preface dietary advice with "I know I could stand to lose a few pounds" Did I believe either doctor for one second? No! Heck, not yelling "60 pounds isn't a few!" nearly required biting off my tongue, LOL!

It seems that admitting a personal failing made patients more at ease and receptive to advice. That's a better than pretending your struggle is more significant than someone else's and making excuses.

 

[Stagg737]

That's not what I said. I said weight/BMI wasn't the only measure of health. How the heck did you make it to med school without any logic capabilities? Nevermind you're probably just good at memorizing crap like most med students.

Your statements were ambiguous and unclear as there were several ways that your statements may have been interpreted. Perhaps you should work on clarifying your communication skills instead of trying to use clever one-lined quips which leave your statements open to interpretation.

Any half decent doctor would include a statement like "I know it's difficult..." or "most people need to try more than once before they are successful at [smoking cessation, weight loss, etc]". So the idea that a fat doctor telling a fat patient "you need to lose weight and here are some things that can help" is hypocritical doesn't jive with me. You don't have to be better than someone at something to teach or provide good advice/guidance. Do you think any of the sports coaches at the professional or even college level can outperform their athletes?

Don't get me wrong, I understand the way people think. I just don't think the way thing are is the same as the way things ought to be.

I agree with the last statement, there is a huge gap between the way things are perceived and the way things ought to be perceived. I also don't have a problem with a physician that is overweight helping to council their patients that are overweight. However, there is a major difference between a doctor that has a BMI of 26-28 vs. a doc with a 32+ BMI telling a patient they need to lose weight. Generally speaking, the physician that is 10-15 pounds overweight is probably living a healthier lifestyle than the one that is 50-60 pounds overweight. Obviously there will be exceptions on both sides, but if someone is not going to practice an important lesson they are trying to instill in their patients/clients/players, then imo they are being hypocritical.

A better interpretation of your coach/athlete analogy would be a coach making his or her athletes practice twice as much as normal than any other team while only doing half the stuff behind the scenes that other coaches do (watching tape, working on plays/strategies, determining line-ups). In that case the coach is preaching hard work while slacking off him/herself. A doctor doesn't need experience in losing weight to help their patient lose weight, but they should be living a healthy lifestyle themselves if they are going to be telling their patients to do so.

 

[Goro]

Patients relate to their physicians with whom they share the same problems. But a smoking clinician telling a patient to quit smoking might not go over as well as an overweight clinician telling an overweight patient to lose weight.

For starters I'm overweight, but a heavy-set guy.

Today in class we had a discussion about talking to an obese patient about diet, exercise, and diabetes. Some students had different approaches, but we thought it would be tough to convince an obese person to be healthier. Fast forward to later in the day and we're talking to some residents at our core sites and local programs. Some of them we're overweight, some very obese.

It really made me think how does that look from a patient's eyes, I don't think I could completely trust an unhealthy doctor. No one's perfect and like I said, I'm not in the healthy range either. This does give me motivation to lose weight though.

 

[futuremdforme]

The Cleveland Clinic recently decided not to hire smokers. I thought that was a really interesting (discriminatory?) move. What do you guys think of that?

From a patient perspective, I'm not fat and don't smoke, but otherwise I have no issue with a fat or smoker doctor.

 

[cbrons]

Would you trust a pediatrician who doesn't have kids of their own?

On medical issues, yes. On parenting issues, absolutely not.

Would you trust a marriage counselor who isn't married?

No.

 

[Doudline]

On medical issues, yes. On parenting issues, absolutely not.

Considering the over half a century of solid psych research on parenting techniques and their outcomes, having children should be very far down the totem pole of credibility on the matter.

 

[cbrons]

Considering the over half a century of solid psych research on parenting techniques and their outcomes, having children should be very far down the totem pole of credibility on the matter.

Huh?
I feel like you just insulted me but i dont understand. Want to fight @ lan?

 

[Silmaril]

The short answer is yes, it makes us look bad when our lifestyle doesn't match up with what we teach. It would be hard to trust a pulmonologist or even an oncologist who smoked or anyone (not just a healthcare provider) who told someone they needed to loose weight when they were overweight themselves.

However, in most cases, the patient doesn't care. Well, maybe they do if you smell like cigarette smoke.

 

[sloop]

The Cleveland Clinic recently decided not to hire smokers. I thought that was a really interesting (discriminatory?) move. What do you guys think of that?

From a patient perspective, I'm not fat and don't smoke, but otherwise I have no issue with a fat or smoker doctor.

There are a couple hospitals I know of that will not hire smokers. Some even will test you for nicotine. I find this an odd move if for no other reason than because it winds up punishing some people for activities that are not even chronic and are probably not that unhealthy. Not that I agree with not hiring smokers to begin with, but if you're doing so, presumably it's based on an evaluation that the activity is too unsafe or too unhealthy for a provider to do. But these policies entirely disregard the frequency and other factors that are going to influence risk. The doctor who has a cigar every few years when he goes to a wedding or New Years Party or something is in a totally different risk category than the 2 pk/day cigarette smoker.

 

[Doudline]

Huh?
I feel like you just insulted me but i dont understand. Want to fight @ lan?

Didn't insult you, ho!

Just stated that one ain't gotta breed to know how to raise kids, because there's enough scientific research on the topic already!

 

[fancymylotus]

Smoking is disgusting. Dont do it. The end.

 

[ortnakas]

It depends. Some people say an obese doctor would be able to connect more with an obese patient. I disagree. I think I'd unconsciously be less likely to take an obese doctor telling me to lose weight seriously. I have family members who have told me - why should I quit smoking - my doctor smokes and he's the health expert right?

I've seen it go both ways.
My grandmother's physician is obese-- she doesn't trust him because "he's fat too, so what does he know."
On the other hand, my dad's physician is thin, and my dad has a hard time listening to weight loss and general cardiovascular advice from him because "he's a skinny guy and doesn't know what it's like."

 

[Seth Joo]

For starters I'm overweight, but a heavy-set guy.

Today in class we had a discussion about talking to an obese patient about diet, exercise, and diabetes. Some students had different approaches, but we thought it would be tough to convince an obese person to be healthier. Fast forward to later in the day and we're talking to some residents at our core sites and local programs. Some of them we're overweight, some very obese.

It really made me think how does that look from a patient's eyes, I don't think I could completely trust an unhealthy doctor. No one's perfect and like I said, I'm not in the healthy range either. This does give me motivation to lose weight though.

I do not think being overweight would make a bad impression on patients, it might actually help you connect with them given that many people have weight problems. Cigarette smoking on the other hand will probably put in a negative light with a lot of people as a medical professional. Its not uncommon to meet unhealthy physicians, medicine is highly stressful, and stress usually leads to weight gain and other health related problems.

 

[jl lin]

The Cleveland Clinic recently decided not to hire smokers. I thought that was a really interesting (discriminatory?) move. What do you guys think of that?

From a patient perspective, I'm not fat and don't smoke, but otherwise I have no issue with a fat or smoker doctor.

Neither am/do I. I know of a doctor, whom I love and respect for his knowledge, skills, effectiveness, compassion, and sensitivity, and he smokes. I have smelled the smoke on him. (Always remember that some people have a stronger sense of smell than others--women in particular.) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...dy-finds-female-brain-50-olfactory-cells.html

He is hurting himself and his family, who love him greatly. He is also doing his patients, who also love him and look up to him, a great disservice. I suppose he tells himself that he controls it, and it is one of his very few vices and stress-reducers. Sure, it's his life, and he can do what he wants. He is in private practice. It's still a shame.

I've heard of nurses that were already grandfathered in say, "Yes, it's not worth losing your job over." Yet they sneak it every chance they can. Addicts have massive denial, or they are just OK at taking a bit longer than others to kill themselves. I've heard young people jokingly say, "I'm taking care of my diaper years." Thing is, they will probably only add to the expense/burden of healthcare.

Back to hospitals and other systems refusing to hire smokers:

This is occurring at many hospitals, and all will eventually comply. If you work as a nurse, physician, allied health, whatever, at a growing number of hospitals, and you test positive for cotinine, which would be done w/ other screening and physical with the job offering, you will receive a retraction of the job offer. The written offer stipulates you must pass these, and if you are positive at whatever there cut-off is for cotinine, no, you can't have the job after all.

They are doing this for a few reasons. So yes, they are brining you into their deal with the offered medical insurance, but another glaring reason is it's a horrible thing to have attached to your brand. Hospitals and medical systems, like every other business, have to brand themselves and look at their reputations. It's also a problem w/ re: to the affects of secondhand smoke-even for some patients that are effect by what clings to the clothing and hair. Certain kids and patients that are sensitive to it. For that part, it's a similar reason as to why you shouldn't come in with perfume or cologne. You little bit may smell nice--at least to you and some others--but it is definitely a problem for some patients.

It's not discriminatory in the sense of human rights or recognized violations to no longer hire people that use nicotine. Most places are At-Will-Emplyment. You do it their way or you take the highway--or they will put you out on the highway.

There is a lot in medical science the is still unknown. The evidence against smoking and obesity and various lifestyle behaviors is pretty strong, and a lot of it has been circulated or published by the media. Do you believe patients won't be influenced by this information?
Stress in the job or not. These kinds of destructive crutches can be broken. I believe we have to be leaders in this. The most effective leaders lead by example.

 

[W19]

I do not think being overweight would make a bad impression on patients, it might actually help you connect with them given that many people have weight problems. Cigarette smoking on the other hand will probably put in a negative light with a lot of people as a medical professional. Its not uncommon to meet unhealthy physicians, medicine is highly stressful, and stress usually leads to weight gain and other health related problems.

'I understand it's difficult, I myself have not been able to do it'... Oh boy!

 

[medic86]

Neither am/do I. I know of a doctor, whom I love and respect for his knowledge, skills, effectiveness, compassion, and sensitivity, and he smokes. I have smelled the smoke on him. (Always remember that some people have a stronger sense of smell than others--women in particular.) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...dy-finds-female-brain-50-olfactory-cells.html

He is hurting himself and his family, who love him greatly. He is also doing his patients, who also love him and look up to him, a great disservice. I suppose he tells himself that he controls it, and it is one of his very few vices and stress-reducers. Sure, it's his life, and he can do what he wants. He is in private practice. It's still a shame.

I've heard of nurses that were already grandfathered in say, "Yes, it's not worth losing your job over." Yet they sneak it every chance they can. Addicts have massive denial, or they are just OK at taking a bit longer than others to kill themselves. I've heard young people jokingly say, "I'm taking care of my diaper years." Thing is, they will probably only add to the expense/burden of healthcare.

Back to hospitals and other systems refusing to hire smokers:

This is occurring at many hospitals, and all will eventually comply. If you work as a nurse, physician, allied health, whatever, at a growing number of hospitals, and you test positive for cotinine, which would be done w/ other screening and physical with the job offering, you will receive a retraction of the job offer. The written offer stipulates you must pass these, and if you are positive at whatever there cut-off is for cotinine, no, you can't have the job after all.

They are doing this for a few reasons. So yes, they are brining you into their deal with the offered medical insurance, but another glaring reason is it's a horrible thing to have attached to your brand. Hospitals and medical systems, like every other business, have to brand themselves and look at their reputations. It's also a problem w/ re: to the affects of secondhand smoke-even for some patients that are effect by what clings to the clothing and hair. Certain kids and patients that are sensitive to it. For that part, it's a similar reason as to why you shouldn't come in with perfume or cologne. You little bit may smell nice--at least to you and some others--but it is definitely a problem for some patients.

It's not discriminatory in the sense of human rights or recognized violations to no longer hire people that use nicotine. Most places are At-Will-Emplyment. You do it their way or you take the highway--or they will put you out on the highway.

There is a lot in medical science the is still unknown. The evidence against smoking and obesity and various lifestyle behaviors is pretty strong, and a lot of it has been circulated or published by the media. Do you believe patients won't be influenced by this information?
Stress in the job or not. These kinds of destructive crutches can be broken. I believe we have to be leaders in this. The most effective leaders lead by example.

Except in states with smoker protection laws, yeah.

I have a big problem with this move. I don't smoke anymore (on nicotine replacement), but what if I wanted to enjoy a cigar occasionally? The half-life for cotinine is pretty lengthy, and you could "pop hot" on a drug test if they include a cotinine assay.

The limiting of personal liberties (legal ones, at that) by employers is ridiculous, in my opinion. Why stop at tobacco? Why not alcohol consumption?

 

[Ophthoseidon]

It doesn't make you look bad because you're a doctor. It makes you bad as a person (Not necessarily overweight, but in regards to being obese or a smoker).

 

[Seth Joo]

'I understand it's difficult, I myself have not been able to do it'... Oh boy!

I am not overweight nor a smoker. I know plenty of people though who have weight problems, its not an issue for doctors. I have witnessed overweight physicians advising out of shape patients to lose weight though, its kind of ineffective.

Apparently one of the leading diet doctors, Dr. Robert Atkins, was about 30 pounds overweight at the time of his death.

 

[Stagg737]

I've seen it go both ways.
My grandmother's physician is obese-- she doesn't trust him because "he's fat too, so what does he know."
On the other hand, my dad's physician is thin, and my dad has a hard time listening to weight loss and general cardiovascular advice from him because "he's a skinny guy and doesn't know what it's like."

I understand where your dad is coming from, but there's a difference between telling someone "Hey, you need to lose weight, don't make excuses" and saying something along the lines of "Your current weight is putting you at greater risk for conditions A-Z, let's talk about your lifestyle and see if there's anything we can do to help you lead a healthier life". Even if the doctor is thin, in the second case they can relate as it can get difficult to be healthy during med school and residency. The doc could also easily point an overweight patient to support groups or online communities that have thousands of people that face the same struggles as many other overweight people. It's not a physicians job to be a babysitter, it's their job to help patients understand what their health problems are, administer treatment when possible, and help them find resources and support for their issues.

 

[jl lin]

Except in states with smoker protection laws, yeah.

I have a big problem with this move. I don't smoke anymore (on nicotine replacement), but what if I wanted to enjoy a cigar occasionally? The half-life for cotinine is pretty lengthy, and you could "pop hot" on a drug test if they include a cotinine assay.

The limiting of personal liberties (legal ones, at that) by employers is ridiculous, in my opinion. Why stop at tobacco? Why not alcohol consumption?

Yes but w/ AWE, you can be fired for cause or NO CAUSE AT ALL.

I don't think they will eliminate people that were hired before instituting the policy. But they can be this way with all new hires, b/c it's their business.

Heck, if someone w influence doesn't like the way you part your hair, they don't necessarily need a reason to let you go. It happens ALL the time--not the hair part firing, lol, but firing people for idiotic reasons or b/c someone's friends didn't like them or whatever--having nothing to do with their effectiveness with their duties. The legal departments, however, just like to have something in their "files"--to have some reason--some pre-text, just in case someone decides to take legal actions--and good luck to them with that.

But it's like MS or residency programs. The reason they may not take you may have nothing to do with your abilities per se. They may like someone else's personality better, whatever. The world is FULL of capriciousness and injustices. This is why people shouldn't make assumptions about why people may lose their jobs. There are plenty of times, and I have witnessed it--holding the hankies for nurses that were let go for absolutely BS reasons--and trumped up/pre-text issues--doctors as well. It happens a lot. Now mind you. Some people are incompetent; but usually if a person makes through a rigorous nursing program or the even more rigorous medical program and residency, more times than not, they are competent. A good part of the time, sadly, the "right fit" means pleasing the "right" people. As far as legal action...lol... most wrongful termination cases are lost and or go nowhere.

Make no mistake about it. People are at the mercy of their employers and those of influence within the organizations. Personally, I think it is why a lot of people used to go into private practice, but that has changed. So now this is why people like @cabinbuilder work Locums Tenens or the like.

The whole Frank Sinatra song "I Did It My Way" is gone with the wind for the most part. You do it THEIR way.

 

[bd290]

Your statements were ambiguous and unclear as there were several ways that your statements may have been interpreted. Perhaps you should work on clarifying your communication skills instead of trying to use clever one-lined quips which leave your statements open to interpretation.

Take your own advice. You're dismissed now.

 

[Mad Jack]

If a doctor who smokes tells me about chantix and how it helps millions of people quit smoking I'm going to listen. The doctor is trained to give advice. Whether or not they take their own advice isn't my concern.

Am I going to take surgical technique advice from a psychiatrist with no surgical training? Of course not. But these are two vastly different situations.

Like I said before, if you're not going to take smoking cessation advice from a doctor who smokes, then why would you take smoking cessation advice from someone who has never smoked? One chose to never smoke, one chose to smoke, but neither has first hand experience with the cessation process.

I had great success in getting people to stop smoking as a former smoker. It legit helped me relate to them.

 

[Stagg737]

Take your own advice. You're dismissed now.

Lol, get off your high horse. You've been critical of people for not looking at obesity from a broad enough perspective, then turn around and blast people because they're perspective doesn't line up with your own. Feel free to respond when you feel like quelling your hypocrisy, until then I won't waste my time responding to your short-sightedness.

 

[ortnakas]

I understand where your dad is coming from, but there's a difference between telling someone "Hey, you need to lose weight, don't make excuses" and saying something along the lines of "Your current weight is putting you at greater risk for conditions A-Z, let's talk about your lifestyle and see if there's anything we can do to help you lead a healthier life".

Oh, I absolutely agree. Hopefully, most physicians are going to use your second example and not your first-- my point was that patients may read more into their physician's BMI than we might expect them to.

 

[jakeislove]

Oh, I absolutely agree. Hopefully, most physicians are going to use your second example and not your first-- my point was that patients may read more into their physician's BMI than we might expect them to.[/QUOTE]

People in medicine/education aren't the only ones who make value judgements and decisions based upon numbers.

Why should weight be any different?

 

[jl lin]

Take your own advice. You're dismissed now.

What does that mean? Vague statements w/o even specifically naming the person to whom you are directing the comments is passive-aggressive. If your preference is to ignore, then by all means, employ that device. I believe fully in free will. Don't care to discuss? Scroll or use ignore. You want to make a comment? Let it be clear and direct.

I don't smoke. I have a healthy BMI. I exercise. I drink in serious moderation. I eat healthy. So how am I not taking my own advice?

Dude, no one ever said that obesity or other issues are not complicated in that there are often other things psychologically and emotionally as factors. So you refer out to therapists and such as needed. What does this have to do with striving to be a good example?

But since this is one of your MOs: "Insert finely crafted, passive-aggressive comment
here -->

 

[bd290]

Lol, get off your high horse. You've been critical of people for not looking at obesity from a broad enough perspective, then turn around and blast people because they're perspective doesn't line up with your own. Feel free to respond when you feel like quelling your hypocrisy, until then I won't waste my time responding to your short-sightedness.

Lol. My high horse? Go **** yourself.

 

[jl lin]

Lol. My high horse? Go **** yourself.

Brilliant and classy reply! LOL. You're exactly what the medical profession needs.

 

[sloop]

Smoking is disgusting. Dont do it. The end.

This is totally a personal choice.

People get stupidly moralistic about this issue and it's totally out of proportion to the actual extent of the health risks. Of course some people are averse to the smell or whatever and thats fine. I can understand that. But I despise the smell of cheap canned tuna fish. I don't tell people they are disgusting for eating it.

So many are way too quick to impose their own values on others. Most people have vices. I think they should be aware of the real risks of those activities. I think that years of heavy campaigning against cigarettes have made it difficult for many people to get accurate information about the risks of occasional or infrequent smoking and make an informed decision. What they get from their health care providers is a cursory assessment of risks without explanation of dose-effect, followed by a judgment implying that individuals can never have good reasons for or get personal benefit from smoking and an assessment that smoking is always a bad idea. And I thought we were supposed to be letting patients make their own informed decisions without coercing them . . .

 

[PL198]

This is totally a personal choice.

People get stupidly moralistic about this issue and it's totally out of proportion to the actual extent of the health risks. Of course some people are averse to the smell or whatever and thats fine. I can understand that. But I despise the smell of cheap canned tuna fish. I don't tell people they are disgusting for eating it.

So many are way too quick to impose their own values on others. Most people have vices. I think they should be aware of the real risks of those activities. I think that years of heavy campaigning against cigarettes have made it difficult for many people to get accurate information about the risks of occasional or infrequent smoking and make an informed decision. What they get from their health care providers is a cursory assessment of risks without explanation of dose-effect, followed by a judgment implying that individuals can never have good reasons for or get personal benefit from smoking and an assessment that smoking is always a bad idea. And I thought we were supposed to be letting patients make their own informed decisions without coercing them . . .

my vices don't simultaneously harm every other person in my vicinity.

people can do whatever the hell they want, until it hurts others, which smoking does directly.

 

[fancymylotus]

This is totally a personal choice.

People get stupidly moralistic about this issue and it's totally out of proportion to the actual extent of the health risks. Of course some people are averse to the smell or whatever and thats fine. I can understand that. But I despise the smell of cheap canned tuna fish. I don't tell people they are disgusting for eating it.

So many are way too quick to impose their own values on others. Most people have vices. I think they should be aware of the real risks of those activities. I think that years of heavy campaigning against cigarettes have made it difficult for many people to get accurate information about the risks of occasional or infrequent smoking and make an informed decision. What they get from their health care providers is a cursory assessment of risks without explanation of dose-effect, followed by a judgment implying that individuals can never have good reasons for or get personal benefit from smoking and an assessment that smoking is always a bad idea. And I thought we were supposed to be letting patients make their own informed decisions without coercing them . . .

Unless SHOOZ shopping and driving my fiancé bananas give people cancer, i don't think my vices have a high chance of doing serious harm to myself or anyone else in my vicinity.

 

[Ismet]

Let's keep the discussion civil, please.

 

[futuremdforme]

This is occurring at many hospitals, and all will eventually comply. If you work as a nurse, physician, allied health, whatever, at a growing number of hospitals, and you test positive for cotinine, which would be done w/ other screening and physical with the job offering, you will receive a retraction of the job offer. The written offer stipulates you must pass these, and if you are positive at whatever there cut-off is for cotinine, no, you can't have the job after all.

They are doing this for a few reasons. So yes, they are brining you into their deal with the offered medical insurance, but another glaring reason is it's a horrible thing to have attached to your brand. Hospitals and medical systems, like every other business, have to brand themselves and look at their reputations. It's also a problem w/ re: to the affects of secondhand smoke-even for some patients that are effect by what clings to the clothing and hair. Certain kids and patients that are sensitive to it. For that part, it's a similar reason as to why you shouldn't come in with perfume or cologne. You little bit may smell nice--at least to you and some others--but it is definitely a problem for some patients.

It's not discriminatory in the sense of human rights or recognized violations to no longer hire people that use nicotine. Most places are At-Will-Emplyment. You do it their way or you take the highway--or they will put you out on the highway.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's reasonable. I don't think my personal behavior has any bearing on my ability to do my job. It's no different than not hiring people who drink alcohol, or not hiring people who eat meat, or not hiring people who drive (since driving does pollute, contribute to global warming, and also to the obesity and sedentary lifestyle of the driver). I can see making it difficult to smoke, such as having a wide smoke-free hospital campus and making a no-smoke before/during work rule though.

 

[giantswing]

Brilliant and classy reply! LOL. You're exactly what the medical profession needs.

You do realize you qouted the daily mail as your scientific source, right?

 

[seminoma]

my vices don't simultaneously harm every other person in my vicinity.

people can do whatever the hell they want, until it hurts others, which smoking does directly.

You could just walk away from the smoking person(s) if you're worried about second hand smoke.

Unless SHOOZ shopping and driving my fiancé bananas give people cancer, i don't think my vices have a high chance of doing serious harm to myself or anyone else in my vicinity.

Well... some shoes are made partially of leather and leather is made from cows. Probably every skinned cow is also butchered and sold in grocery stores as steaks. Science has recently proven meat a carcinogen. Consumerism increases the leather shoe demand, which directly increases the meat supply. Plus the sweat shops making your leather shoes are providing little children with money to buy meat. Ergo your leather shoes are causing cancer and killing sweat shop workers and helpless third world country children.

 

[Dr. Death]

You could just walk away from the smoking person(s) if you're worried about second hand smoke.



Well... some shoes are made partially of leather and leather is made from cows. Probably every skinned cow is also butchered and sold in grocery stores as steaks. Science has recently proven meat a carcinogen. Consumerism increases the leather shoe demand, which directly increases the meat supply. Plus the sweat shops making your leather shoes are providing little children with money to buy meat. Ergo your leather shoes are causing cancer and killing sweat shop workers and helpless third world country children.

Not sure if joking. . .

My daughters nutritionist was 5 foot 2 and a donut over 400 pounds. No longer her nutritionist. I think of it like church people. Church people are generally expected to preach the word and help people become better people. I'm not going to listen to a church person tell me not to steal or be greedy when I watch that SOB pull up in his lambo and don't have to wonder where that tithing money went. I think doctors should not decrease their own wellness by smoking and living unhealthy lifestyles.

 

[Psai]

I've seen it go both ways.
My grandmother's physician is obese-- she doesn't trust him because "he's fat too, so what does he know."
On the other hand, my dad's physician is thin, and my dad has a hard time listening to weight loss and general cardiovascular advice from him because "he's a skinny guy and doesn't know what it's like."

They can just switch doctors. Problem solved.

 

[seminoma]

Not sure if joking. . .

My daughters nutritionist was 5 foot 2 and a donut over 400 pounds. No longer her nutritionist. I think of it like church people. Church people are generally expected to preach the word and help people become better people. I'm not going to listen to a church person tell me not to steal or be greedy when I watch that SOB pull up in his lambo and don't have to wonder where that tithing money went. I think doctors should not decrease their own wellness by smoking and living unhealthy lifestyles.

Introducing religion into a thread is always an exciting turn of events. (I wasn't serious about leather, btw).

I'll concede that advice on how to lose weight is maybe questionable coming from an overweight doctor. However, advice on the importance of losing weight should not be devalued just because it comes from an overweight doctor.

 

[PL198]

Introducing religion into a thread is always an exciting turn of events. (I wasn't serious about leather, btw).

I'll concede that advice on how to lose weight is maybe questionable coming from an overweight doctor. However, advice on the importance of losing weight should not be devalued just because it comes from an overweight doctor.

huh? clearly it can't be too important or the doctor themselves would lose their extra fat. stop using weight, it's not the same thing and physicians should be the absolute most frequent people to make his distinction.

you keep trying to warp the argument to somehow support your points. a physician that exhibits chronic behavior that tangibly harms their health in a significant way is not a good thing in any way shape or form. stop trying to weasel around it. if you're a fat FM doctor, idc what you're saying, how you're saying it, what the topic is, whatever, people will generally be less receptive to it. for every 1 fat person that goes " oh he understands my struggles because he's fat too" there will be 100 that think " well what does he know, because he clearly can't do it either."

you keep playing these like extreme minority arguments and it just makes no sense. just keep missing the forest for the trees.

being a physician and exhibiting chronic behavior that significantly and tangibly reduces your health is a bad thing, end of story. we're not talking about 1 drink a month here, we're talking about behaviors that increase disease likelihood by multiple levels of magnitude, ie smoking a pack a day or being obese.

 

[PL198]

You could just walk away from the smoking person(s) if you're worried about second hand smoke.



Well... some shoes are made partially of leather and leather is made from cows. Probably every skinned cow is also butchered and sold in grocery stores as steaks. Science has recently proven meat a carcinogen. Consumerism increases the leather shoe demand, which directly increases the meat supply. Plus the sweat shops making your leather shoes are providing little children with money to buy meat. Ergo your leather shoes are causing cancer and killing sweat shop workers and helpless third world country children.

or they could just be an adult and recognize that it's not acceptable to tangibly harm everyone around you or have the expectation that they will all move so you can enjoy your cancer sticks on your own

 

[jl lin]

Went to thread when not logged on to site. Saw quote addressed to me from someone Giantfly or something, IDK, who is apparently on my ignore list. Well, God help me, I will respond, but you do realize I won't care what you write after this, b/c I won't see you!

OK, it is not necessarily my responsibility to provide primary research sources for you--no, not in a casual Internet forum necessarily. It had enough to go on for it's general purpose. If you have access to the right databases, feel free to see what has been referenced in the article from which I posted. Too much trouble? Oh. Alright. I'll do it for you. The article was to post a point, but the original research is not too difficult to obtain, and as it is, I am having a fun time with network access. But whatever.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111733

Who knows but you will now go into some rant about evidence-based this and that, of which I am already fully aware.
Geez.

Have a lovely day.

Re: women and the olfactory component, consider this carefully when choosing to ignore how to attract women. I don't know what it is, but some guys just don't get the whole hygiene, brush teeth, and smell good thing. Maybe it has something to do with d00b usage.

 

[Stagg737]

Introducing religion into a thread is always an exciting turn of events. (I wasn't serious about leather, btw).

I'll concede that advice on how to lose weight is maybe questionable coming from an overweight doctor. However, advice on the importance of losing weight should not be devalued just because it comes from an overweight doctor.

Key words right there. Perspective matters, and people won't always use logic. Some, maybe many, people won't take advice from someone that doesn't follow that advice themselves, even if it is very valid.

 

[seminoma]

huh? clearly it can't be too important or the doctor themselves would lose their extra fat. stop using weight, it's not the same thing and physicians should be the absolute most frequent people to make his distinction.

you keep trying to warp the argument to somehow support your points. a physician that exhibits chronic behavior that tangibly harms their health in a significant way is not a good thing in any way shape or form. stop trying to weasel around it. if you're a fat FM doctor, idc what you're saying, how you're saying it, what the topic is, whatever, people will generally be less receptive to it. for every 1 fat person that goes " oh he understands my struggles because he's fat too" there will be 100 that think " well what does he know, because he clearly can't do it either."

you keep playing these like extreme minority arguments and it just makes no sense. just keep missing the forest for the trees.

being a physician and exhibiting chronic behavior that significantly and tangibly reduces your health is a bad thing, end of story. we're not talking about 1 drink a month here, we're talking about behaviors that increase disease likelihood by multiple levels of magnitude, ie smoking a pack a day or being obese.

Of course I'm trying to argue support for my points.. why wouldn't I? I've never disputed "chronic behavior that tangibly harms their health in a significant way is a not a good thing". My posts have simply said that the science of fat and health is no different coming from a fat doctor than from a not-fat doctor. And again, I've already said I realize people will devalue the information, but I disagree that it's correct to do so. Remember that one post where I said something like "I realize how things are, but I don't think that's how they ought to be"?

What "minority arguments"? I don't even know what that means.

or they could just be an adult and recognize that it's not acceptable to tangibly harm everyone around you or have the expectation that they will all move so you can enjoy your cancer sticks on your own

Do you regularly drive at or below the speed limit? The smoker is just as free to smoke as you are to not-smoke. I dislike being around cigarette smoke as much as the next guy, but people can smoke wherever they want within the limits of the law. Sure it's annoying that you (I) have to either move or deal with the smell, but my freedom to access smoke-free air does not outweigh their freedom to smoke in a public or non-smoking-prohibited place.

 

[jl lin]

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's reasonable. I don't think my personal behavior has any bearing on my ability to do my job. It's no different than not hiring people who drink alcohol, or not hiring people who eat meat, or not hiring people who drive (since driving does pollute, contribute to global warming, and also to the obesity and sedentary lifestyle of the driver). I can see making it difficult to smoke, such as having a wide smoke-free hospital campus and making a no-smoke before/during work rule though.

Well, I am not for a nanny state either, but it is what it is. I think you will only see this initiative continue to spread throughout all medical centers. I mean listen. In Colorado pot is legal, right? Doesn't mean your potential employer is not going to drug test and turn you down when they find marijuana metabolite (THC-COOH).

 

[medic86]

Well, I am not for a nanny state either, but it is what it is. I think you will only see this initiative continue to spread throughout all medical centers. I mean listen. In Colorado pot is legal, right? Doesn't mean your potential employer is not going to drug test and turn you down when they find marijuana metabolite (THC-COOH).

Bad argument.

Nicotine doesn't negatively alter your mental status.

 

[jl lin]

You could just walk away from the smoking person(s) if you're worried about second hand smoke.



Well... some shoes are made partially of leather and leather is made from cows. Probably every skinned cow is also butchered and sold in grocery stores as steaks. Science has recently proven meat a carcinogen. Consumerism increases the leather shoe demand, which directly increases the meat supply. Plus the sweat shops making your leather shoes are providing little children with money to buy meat. Ergo your leather shoes are causing cancer and killing sweat shop workers and helpless third world country children.

"Thirdhand smoke residue builds up on surfaces over time and resists normal cleaning. Thirdhand smoke can't be eliminated by airing out rooms, opening windows, using fans or air conditioners, or confining smoking to only certain areas of a home. In contrast, secondhand smoke is the smoke and other airborne products that come from being close to burning tobacco products, such as cigarettes.

The only way to protect nonsmokers from thirdhand smoke is to create a smoke-free environment, whether that's your private home or vehicle, or in public places, such as hotels and restaurants."--Lowell Dale, MD
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-l.../expert-answers/third-hand-smoke/faq-20057791
(Sorry. In the interest of time I posted from Mayo Clinic website. Sue me. lol)

 

[jl lin]

Bad argument.

Nicotine doesn't negatively alter your mental status.

LOL. The point, which clearly flew past you, is in the fact that the employer can choose to implement a policy re: hiring that does not violate EEOC or such, and if you fall short, you don't get the position. The legal troubles after employment, at which I believe you have hinted, would deal with firing someone for smoking AFTER they have been given the position. Legally, that's another ball game. I mean these places aren't going around investigating all previously hired employees for cotinine. LOL

Whether the employer could win a lawsuit against firing someone w/ cotinine after the fact is in fact different from say testing for a substance that could affect mental and behavioral functioning. Yes. Again, that's a whole other legal ballgame.

But if a person applies for a position, and the employer establishes a clear policy on the requirements of no having x or y, such as drugs or in fact cotinine, it will be a lot harder for the pre-employee to fight them legally--if not completely impossible--so long as the employer can show that they have said policy and that they follow it w/o disparity throughout their institution.

 

[medic86]

LOL. The point, which clearly flew past you, is in the fact that the employer can choose to implement a policy re: hiring that does not violate EEOC or such, and if you fall short, you don't get the position. The legal troubles after employment, which I believe to which you have hinted, would deal with firing someone for smoking AFTER they have been given the position. Legally, that's another ball game. Whether the employer could win there with cigarettes is in fact different from say testing for a substance that could affect mental and behavioral functioning. That's a whole other legal ballgame. But if a person applies for a position, and the employer establishes a clear policy on the requirements of no having x or y, such as drugs or in fact cotinine, it will be a lot harder to fight them legally--if not completely impossible, so long as they can show that they have said policy and that they follow it w/o disparity throughout their institution.

In most cases, those smoker protection laws apply to hiring as well.

On a somewhat unrelated note: did anyone ever tell you that you write entirely too much?