Is it morally wrong for a doctor to smoke cigarettes?
Started by FujiApple
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Oh come on. In America i'd be willing to bet 95% of all obesity is due to diet/sedentary lifestyle.
Would you go to a dentist who had really bad teeth himself?
Would you get your hair cut by a stylist who sported an awful haircut?
Hippocracy damages credibility for any professional in any profession.
Why does it surprise anyone that doctors have the reputation of being not only medical experts (in terms of knowledge), but also, to an extent, paragons of healthy behavior?
That is NOT to say doctors should be PERFECT. But, above average in terms of healthy decision-making? I would say that's a reasonable expectation. (After all, doctors are presumably above average in intelligence, above average in other traits selected for via the application process such as: responsibility, leadership skills, etc.)
How difficult was it to take so many science courses and ace the majority of them? How difficult is it to be disciplined enough to exercise somewhat regularly and make the choice to take care of one's body?
Some of the best med students I know are incredibly disciplined in their studying (unsurprisingly), but also very disciplined in terms of taking care of their own bodies: for example, getting up at 6AM every day for a run, no matter what. I really doubt an individual can be incredibly disciplined in their professional lives if they cannot take care of their personal **** at all... ime, a sense of discipline & order permeates an individuals entire sphere of life.
If your personal life is chaotic and you need to smoke a pack a day to calm down (i.e. you are dependent), I can't imagine how that would make you a better physician at work.
---------------------------
The other thing that separates smoking as a "vice" from all other "vices" such as overeating, having unprotected sex, drinking, etc.....
To state the obvious yet again: EVERY SINGLE PUFF IS HARMFUL TO YOUR HEALTH.
Having unprotected sex is risky behavior, but if it happens once, it is *possible* that no negative consequences will result. (Of course, I am in no way advocating having unprotected sex! Merely pointing out a difference between a "risky behavior" with potentially very harmful effects and a "100% damaging behavior").
Every single puff does damage to the body. There's no escaping it. And it's almost laughable to contemplate why given these facts anyone would choose to smoke.
The WHO has just released a memorandum advising all countries to ban smoking in all public indoor spaces, because no amount of exposure to smoke is "safe" (duh).
Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the world, accounting for 10% of ALL adult fatalities!
It is such a serious problem that WHO even has a policy of not hiring smokers!
I really hope a smoking ban will be adopted for hospital grounds, at the very least.
If you must smoke, please do it in your own homes only. It's ridiculous to me that a healthcare provider would knowingly endanger the health of OTHERS through smoking in public areas.
(The secondhand effects of smoking makes it simply incomparable to other vices such as unhealthy eating or even overdrinking.)
So, other then the idea that doctors are supposed to be "role models" (to an extent) for healthy decision-making, another perhaps more important reason against doctors smoking is something blindingly obvious:
Doctors are supposed to, first and foremost, "do no harm"! The fact that they have undergone extensive education and know full well all the ways in which smoking damages the health of both smoker & bystander makes the "choice of smoking" that much more unacceptable.
Doctors who smoke are choosing to harm others. Not only that, they are breaking an oath that they have made and going against the fundamental ethical principles of their profession. If that cannot be termed "immoral", I don't know what would qualify.
Would you get your hair cut by a stylist who sported an awful haircut?
Hippocracy damages credibility for any professional in any profession.
Why does it surprise anyone that doctors have the reputation of being not only medical experts (in terms of knowledge), but also, to an extent, paragons of healthy behavior?
That is NOT to say doctors should be PERFECT. But, above average in terms of healthy decision-making? I would say that's a reasonable expectation. (After all, doctors are presumably above average in intelligence, above average in other traits selected for via the application process such as: responsibility, leadership skills, etc.)
How difficult was it to take so many science courses and ace the majority of them? How difficult is it to be disciplined enough to exercise somewhat regularly and make the choice to take care of one's body?
Some of the best med students I know are incredibly disciplined in their studying (unsurprisingly), but also very disciplined in terms of taking care of their own bodies: for example, getting up at 6AM every day for a run, no matter what. I really doubt an individual can be incredibly disciplined in their professional lives if they cannot take care of their personal **** at all... ime, a sense of discipline & order permeates an individuals entire sphere of life.
If your personal life is chaotic and you need to smoke a pack a day to calm down (i.e. you are dependent), I can't imagine how that would make you a better physician at work.
---------------------------
The other thing that separates smoking as a "vice" from all other "vices" such as overeating, having unprotected sex, drinking, etc.....
To state the obvious yet again: EVERY SINGLE PUFF IS HARMFUL TO YOUR HEALTH.
Having unprotected sex is risky behavior, but if it happens once, it is *possible* that no negative consequences will result. (Of course, I am in no way advocating having unprotected sex! Merely pointing out a difference between a "risky behavior" with potentially very harmful effects and a "100% damaging behavior").
Every single puff does damage to the body. There's no escaping it. And it's almost laughable to contemplate why given these facts anyone would choose to smoke.
The WHO has just released a memorandum advising all countries to ban smoking in all public indoor spaces, because no amount of exposure to smoke is "safe" (duh).
Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the world, accounting for 10% of ALL adult fatalities!
It is such a serious problem that WHO even has a policy of not hiring smokers!
I really hope a smoking ban will be adopted for hospital grounds, at the very least.
If you must smoke, please do it in your own homes only. It's ridiculous to me that a healthcare provider would knowingly endanger the health of OTHERS through smoking in public areas.
(The secondhand effects of smoking makes it simply incomparable to other vices such as unhealthy eating or even overdrinking.)
So, other then the idea that doctors are supposed to be "role models" (to an extent) for healthy decision-making, another perhaps more important reason against doctors smoking is something blindingly obvious:
Doctors are supposed to, first and foremost, "do no harm"! The fact that they have undergone extensive education and know full well all the ways in which smoking damages the health of both smoker & bystander makes the "choice of smoking" that much more unacceptable.
Doctors who smoke are choosing to harm others. Not only that, they are breaking an oath that they have made and going against the fundamental ethical principles of their profession. If that cannot be termed "immoral", I don't know what would qualify.
Do you think that's the only reason people smoke? Go become learned.
Please Enlighten me. Why do you smoke if 1) you know all the facts about how smoking damages health and 2) you aren't addicted to smoking as a mechanism to relieve stress?
Show me one person who smokes daily yet is NOT psychologically dependent on smoking in some way.
Doctors help people make informed decisions about optimizing their health and lifestyle. Everyone in America, including doctors, is free to assign a different value to each aspect of their lifestyle, and thus embrace certain costs/risks and avoid others, subject to applicable law. The idea that there is no such freedom for doctors and that everyone must live in a manner that maximizes their health above all else is (to me) morally far more morally offensive.
So, you revived a thread from Feb to go on a rant, why?
But to pull you back into the real world for a few min... You do realize that this pedistal you're putting doctors on is a myth, right?
During residency, doctors work insanely long call shifts making life and death decisions while completly sleep deprived. The medical education system supports this. What kind of a healthy (or even sane) choice is that?
And while we're on the subject of healthy decision making, the majority of physicians are chemically addicted to caffeine, a drug that is known to cause nervousness, irritability, anxiety, tremulousness, muscle twitching insomnia, headaches, respiratory alkalosis and heart palpitations.
Finally, who are you to judge a physician's moral compass simply because of a personal decision he makes? Are you qualified to weigh the factors he put into making that decision, as a physician, he knows the risks when he lights-up.
Finally, this thread
:
OK, so it's wrong for someone who is doing harm to themselves to exhort others not to follow in their path? I don't get the logic here. If I'm addicted to nicotine and know full well that it is not good for me, the best thing I can do (next to quitting) is to help others quit or not get addicted. It may be hypocritical, but it is absolutely not immoral. Not a single one of us can claim to live a perfectly healthful life, whether by deliberate choice or for other reasons.
why does a doctor have to preach no smoking? a doctor certainly should make sure that his/her patients are fully informed about consequences of smoking; then the patient can make an informed decision. last I heard, our society hasn't been creating doctors because there was a role model shortage.
Ever hear of a thing called the Hippocratic Oath?
"I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure."
To prevent disease means to tell someone not to smoke because smoking leads to disease. Basic logic there. All doctors must adhere to the oath upon graduation from med school...the good ones stick to it.
using your flawed logic would mean that doctors should stomp out any lit cigarette they see. Their obligation only goes as far as to give evidence-based advice, beyond that the physician would be exerting liberty-depriving power upon society.
I think that many of you are going to find as you age that the only people who idolize and emulate the behavior of physicians are premeds. For the rest of us, our physicians are a very useful and very necessary service providers, like dentists, accountants or mechanics.
And I've had dentists who had bad teeth (a Russian guy), an accountant who I felt was overly aggressive in his investments (so what? ain't my money) and a mechanic who drove old beaters (maybe he was restoring them?).
Seriously. The sooner you quit putting physicians on a pedestal, the easier it will be to deal with the fact that your patients will not be following your advice with baited breath.
And I've had dentists who had bad teeth (a Russian guy), an accountant who I felt was overly aggressive in his investments (so what? ain't my money) and a mechanic who drove old beaters (maybe he was restoring them?).
Seriously. The sooner you quit putting physicians on a pedestal, the easier it will be to deal with the fact that your patients will not be following your advice with baited breath.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Assuming that this is from the hippocratic oath:
1) what is a disease? etymologically, it means a separation from easiness. Depending on a person's lifestyle, being a non-smoker could be considered a disease. If men without testicles have longer life expectancies (which may be possible; I don't know), a doctor claiming moral obligation to remove all testicles from his practice would certainly not be allowed to practice (even if they were all past their self-defined reproductive years) If you prefer to define a disease as a factor that accelerates one towards death, then most things that "we live for" could be considered diseases. Doctors should certianly not feel a moral obligation to prevent their patients from going
skiing, for example, or flying in a space shuttle.
2) A doctor has no ability to prevent anything. Patients are not slaves. All a doctor is empowered to do (assuming that the patient meets legal definitions of sanity) is provide medical advice and contracted services. Telling a patient about the risks of smoking fall into this category. Presuming to know the patients values better than the patient is not only arrogant and annoying, but necessarily non-scientific if such a presumption is made by a person who has blanketly prejudged all of his patients before ever meeting them.
Finally - I've read three different translations of the Hippocratic Oath, and what you've provided here does not look familiar. Please provide your source.
A new oath should end with "I will remember who signs my checks."
as another non-trad (26), I couldn't agree more.
Please Enlighten me. Why do you smoke if 1) you know all the facts about how smoking damages health and 2) you aren't addicted to smoking as a mechanism to relieve stress?
Show me one person who smokes daily yet is NOT psychologically dependent on smoking in some way.
You said it yourself. A smoker is psychologically dependent on smoking in some way, not necessarily to relieve stress.
why dependent?
what if someone just likes the taste, and doesn't really care that much about their geriatric years.
or what if they find that it helps them professionally - trying to socialize with people not afraid of taking risk (or maybe even trying to transact with people who are bad decision makers), entertaining clients at a cigar club
or what if they work w/ lasers in a physics lab and just like blowing on the mirrors
or what if they stink, and notice that people prefer the smell of cigarettes to their natural stench
or what if they find that smoking virginia slims helps them advertise their personality
or finally, what if they were just born with yellowish skin, hate coffee, and would prefer to coordinate matching teeth with their au natural outfit
7
71263
Are you all serious? Are people really debating the morality of a doctor smoking? Wow... someone(s) needs to get a life. 👎
my source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html
I honestly can't thing of any examples in which a person can be healthier by being a smoker. It may be that research is biased but doctors are entitled to give general information as well as give patient-specific information. If a woman is pregnant, based on general studies and general results, a doctor must advise her not to smoke because of complications for the fetus. If you feel that a few people who don't follow the trend is a enough reasons for doctors to stop telling people to make a healthy decision, that can be extremely detrimental for patients. Doctors, in my opinion, do have the moral obligation to give instruction depending on the severity of situations. If a person comes into the doctor's office w/ a broken leg and says to him "I want to go skydiving", the doctor must tell him "no" because of the high risk of further damage...thus in those cases, it is patient specific. And just like anywhere in life, a doctor can say "stop" but the patient never has to listen.
You say patients are merely slaves (thus being below doctors) yet doctors should never expose their knowledge to the patients. Then why go to the doctor at all? Assuming that a patient of yours that you haven't met wants to survive and live a healthy life does not seem arrogant to me...but who knows, maybe my patient is a suicidal nihilist...I'll take my chances.
Richter, I think you missed my point.
Doctor should advise patient of risks of smoking, that it will shorten life, that it can cause emphysema, mesothelioma, decreased lung capacity, decrease cardiovascular resiliancy, etc., etc. Yes, they absolutely should tell every potentially smoking patient all of these things - HOWEVER, THEY ARE NOT SAYING "DON'T SMOKE". The doctor doesn't know about the rest of the patient's life, so how could the doctor evaluate the non-health trade-offs? All a doctor can do is provide a scientific assessment of the scientific aspect of a decision, and it is presumptive to conclude that this is the only important factor in any decision.
Sorry about paragraph 2 - I can see how I confused you - that should have said "Patients are not slaves". I disagree with your comment "Assuming that a patient of yours that you haven't met wants to survive and live a healthy life does not seem arrogant" because many people knowingly choose to live an unhealthy life (if you count obesity, then maybe most people) - not to mention alcohol consumption! We can inform them and debate them about the science all day long, but we can not give orders to people that force them to make sacrifices based on how much WE value various things.
I think those could all be reasons for one to smoke. I was just trying to say that one doesn't necessarily smoke to relieve stress. Granted, most people do become psychologically dependent in some way after they really start.
What about doctors who have eaten fast food? I guess they would be immoral too since that is unhealthy, but they willfully chose to eat like that.
What about doctors who have stayed up all night, studying, who advise patients to get more sleep? I guess that would be immoral too.
We all have our vices. It doesn't make the greatest impression, but every MD has something they do or have done that is hypocritical.
What about doctors who have stayed up all night, studying, who advise patients to get more sleep? I guess that would be immoral too.
We all have our vices. It doesn't make the greatest impression, but every MD has something they do or have done that is hypocritical.
There are dozens of versions of the Hippocratic Oath. Different flavors to fit different politics.
The actual/original Hippocratic Oath forbade abortions, so if anyone is pro-choice, I'd be careful about waving the Hippocratic Oath flag too strongly.
i don't think it has anything to do with morality. It's kinda dumb, but i really don't think morals have anything to do with it. i don't even really see how it's all that hypocritical, unless he's actively condemning a smoker while he's sucking one back.
I haven't read this entire thread, but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents...
As someone who has struggled with a nicotine addiction for over 10 years (I'm currently quit but still struggling EVERYDAY), I can honestly say that hearing a doctor who has never smoked a cigarette, never tried a drug, or never known someone who has died from a heroin overdose, I probably can't take them too seriously because, well, they certainly don't have much experience with addiction. Its hard for anyone who has never struggled with an addiction to understand what its like, but it is just as important to remain nonjudgmental.
People don't continue to smoke because they're stupid. Most people know tobacco is harmful, and they often feel like its such an impossible task that they don't want to try because there's a chance they would fail. I'm not justifying smoking, but I think its important to have physicians that aren't just going to write off smokers as people who don't care about themselves and their loved ones. Its more complicated than that. I work in Harm Reduction so this is sort of my mantra.
As someone who has struggled with a nicotine addiction for over 10 years (I'm currently quit but still struggling EVERYDAY), I can honestly say that hearing a doctor who has never smoked a cigarette, never tried a drug, or never known someone who has died from a heroin overdose, I probably can't take them too seriously because, well, they certainly don't have much experience with addiction. Its hard for anyone who has never struggled with an addiction to understand what its like, but it is just as important to remain nonjudgmental.
People don't continue to smoke because they're stupid. Most people know tobacco is harmful, and they often feel like its such an impossible task that they don't want to try because there's a chance they would fail. I'm not justifying smoking, but I think its important to have physicians that aren't just going to write off smokers as people who don't care about themselves and their loved ones. Its more complicated than that. I work in Harm Reduction so this is sort of my mantra.
Well, actually it's just an awful form of government, partly because the members of the ruling class don't have opposable thumbs.
(Jonathan Swift coined the word hippocracy, meaning a nation ruled by horses. "Hypocrisy" may be the word you were looking for.)
On the other hand, hippocracy could mean a slavish over-devotion to the tenets of the Hippocratic oath.
Thank you for the insight.
is it immoral to ban smoking in planes, since a flight burns thousands of gallons of fuel?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
They don't ban smoking b/c it pollutes, they ban it b/c it irritates people. I don't understand what you are trying to get at here.
This thread is ******ed and immoral
If you guys really think that some doctors don't do drugs, smoke, or engage in any other health threatening activities, then you are a bunch of idiots.
If you guys really think that some doctors don't do drugs, smoke, or engage in any other health threatening activities, then you are a bunch of idiots.
Uhh...I lack the energy to go back and quote all of the stupidity I just read. So bear with me please as I try to remember what people said...
Whoever said that it bothers them when people smoke near doors...do you walk really slowly or something? Maybe if you stop for a chat, breathe in some secondhand smoke for awhile, and then go inside, you'll have problems because of second-hand smoke. But more likely, you can just hold your breath for the 10 seconds it takes to walk inside.
As for everyone who keeps commenting on doctors who smell like smoke...there's this awesome stuff, called Febreeze and mouthwash. If I was a doctor who smoked, I would simply spray myself down after my cigarette break, swish a little Listerine around, and go back to work.
In any case, if you don't like my smoking, stop breathing! I only smoke socially, on very rare occasions, and the only time it's been potentially harmful to my health in any sort of dramatic way is because I almost lit my hand on fire because I was ****faced. My boyfriend only doesn't like it when I smoke because it reminds him of the firehouse guys.
Smoking certainly isn't immoral. And if my doctor is a good doctor, I don't care if s/he is fat, smokes, drinks, whatever. If you judge your doctor on superficial lifestyle habits that have absolutely no effect on whether s/he is a capable, skilled doctor...well, that just seems stupid to me.
Whoever said that it bothers them when people smoke near doors...do you walk really slowly or something? Maybe if you stop for a chat, breathe in some secondhand smoke for awhile, and then go inside, you'll have problems because of second-hand smoke. But more likely, you can just hold your breath for the 10 seconds it takes to walk inside.
As for everyone who keeps commenting on doctors who smell like smoke...there's this awesome stuff, called Febreeze and mouthwash. If I was a doctor who smoked, I would simply spray myself down after my cigarette break, swish a little Listerine around, and go back to work.
In any case, if you don't like my smoking, stop breathing! I only smoke socially, on very rare occasions, and the only time it's been potentially harmful to my health in any sort of dramatic way is because I almost lit my hand on fire because I was ****faced
. My boyfriend only doesn't like it when I smoke because it reminds him of the firehouse guys.Smoking certainly isn't immoral. And if my doctor is a good doctor, I don't care if s/he is fat, smokes, drinks, whatever. If you judge your doctor on superficial lifestyle habits that have absolutely no effect on whether s/he is a capable, skilled doctor...well, that just seems stupid to me.
True that. I shadowed a cardiothoracic surgeon who told me how much fun he was going to have on the weekend hittin the reefer
The main problem I have with smoking is it harms others. I understand you don't care if you can't breathe because of your smoking habit, but why cause me not to breathe? I think it's selfish.
For example, just the other day I was walking in front of the hospital I work at. Keep in mind they recently (thank g@d) implemented a no smoking policy on hospital property. Before you should have seen it, patients on IVs standing in front of hospital doors puffing away.
So the other day I notice two people (one a patient with obvious IV cart) sitting on the hospital bench puffing away. There is a NO SMOKING sign right next to them.
I tell them "you cannot smoke here"
The man replies, Where should I go California? You can't smoke there either?
I replied with, Sir, we are here to save lives.
He then agreed and apologized🙂
For example, just the other day I was walking in front of the hospital I work at. Keep in mind they recently (thank g@d) implemented a no smoking policy on hospital property. Before you should have seen it, patients on IVs standing in front of hospital doors puffing away.
So the other day I notice two people (one a patient with obvious IV cart) sitting on the hospital bench puffing away. There is a NO SMOKING sign right next to them.
I tell them "you cannot smoke here"
The man replies, Where should I go California? You can't smoke there either?
I replied with, Sir, we are here to save lives.
He then agreed and apologized🙂
I love how everyone has chosen to focus on a few tangential details of my post, while simultaneously ignoring its main points. Namely:
- Smoking not only harms the smoker but also those the smoker chooses to smoke around. Doctors who smoke are willfully damaging the health of their nonsmoking loved ones as well as strangers. This is a direct violation of the Hippocratic Oath: first do no harm (to others).
Even if the smoker only smokes outside the house, s/he is bringing in the carcinogens indoors because the particles are all over his body and his clothing. Studies have shown that a toddler in a smoker's household who is crawling around on the carpet for two hours inhales enough particles that it is equivalent to smoking several cigarettes!
You know, if smoking were truly a self-contained endeavor, I wouldn't even care. Do with your body what you like. But FREEDOM, a word that gets bandied about so often in this oh so "egalitarian" society of ours, at its core, is quite hollow when used to justify behavior that is harmful to others.
Your "freedom" to smoke does not include (or should not include) impinging on my "freedom" to maximize my own health by not smoking or being exposed to smoke.
(As an alternate example, can a woman who knows she is pregnant (but isn't visibly pregnant yet) buy alcohol at a bar and drink? I suppose she is exercising her "freedom"... 🙄 Is exercising one's "freedom" always "moral"? Just because something is not expressly forbidden by law does not mean it's morally commendable.)
- In fact, the World Health Organization considers tobacco use to be such an urgent health concern worldwide, that it will not hire smokers as employees.
There is no LAW that smokers are forbidden to work in healthcare. But the WHO recognizes that in order for its well-researched recommendations to be taken seriously, its employees must adhere to a higher standard of behavior than the general population. Don't like it? Tough. Don't work for WHO.
Similarly, doctors' recommendations against smoking aren't going to be taken very seriously if they are seen puffing away right outside the hospital during lunch break.
Like it or not, smokers ARE role-models in certain contexts. WHO employees seen smoking are sabotaging the mission of their organization. Parents who smoke while urging their kids not to are sabotaging their own credibility as authority figures in the home.
...And doctors who smoke (especially while on hospital grounds) are sabotaging the credibility of their own medical advice. It's true that NO doctor can force any patient to take his or her advice. OTOH, if a doctor knowingly continues behavior that sabotages his or her own credibility as a medical caregiver, s/he is consciously choosing not to provide the best possible care to his/her patients. A doctor is honor bound to do his or her best to TRY to get the patient to follow his or her medical advice.
It's hard to imagine a doctor who smokes being able to advise a patient about the dangers of smoking with "real concern", beyond a mechanical recitation of smoking's "dangers" (which would, for the patient, probably go in one ear and right out the other).
Of course, there's no LAW that spells out exactly what constitutes "trying one's best"... only YOU know, in your heart, whether you're merely going through the motions (doing the bare minimum to cover your a$$ and not get sued), or whether you are actually giving your best effort.
Mechanical recitation of smoking's "risks" != doing one's best as a physician, imho. Considering the fact that smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in adults in the world, such behavior is tantamount to negligence.
In short, the significance of doctors who smoke is NOT the fact that their own bodies are getting damaged. The significance lies in the fact that smoking violates a fundamental tenet of medicine- first, do no harm-
in two ways: one, directly harming others via secondhand exposure; and two, handicapping their own abilities to provide the best care possible to their patients.
I DON'T have a problem with doctors who choose not to take the best possible care of their OWN bodies.
I DO have a problem with doctors who are choosing to harm others.
Sometimes a person's "freedom" to choose comes into conflict with his or her obligation to others.
For example, a pregnant mother's desire for a couple of beers runs directly counter to her obligation to ensure the health of her unborn child. In that case, I would hope the mother would uphold her moral obligation, even though she has the freedom to choose not to do so.
- Smoking not only harms the smoker but also those the smoker chooses to smoke around. Doctors who smoke are willfully damaging the health of their nonsmoking loved ones as well as strangers. This is a direct violation of the Hippocratic Oath: first do no harm (to others).
Even if the smoker only smokes outside the house, s/he is bringing in the carcinogens indoors because the particles are all over his body and his clothing. Studies have shown that a toddler in a smoker's household who is crawling around on the carpet for two hours inhales enough particles that it is equivalent to smoking several cigarettes!
You know, if smoking were truly a self-contained endeavor, I wouldn't even care. Do with your body what you like. But FREEDOM, a word that gets bandied about so often in this oh so "egalitarian" society of ours, at its core, is quite hollow when used to justify behavior that is harmful to others.
Your "freedom" to smoke does not include (or should not include) impinging on my "freedom" to maximize my own health by not smoking or being exposed to smoke.
(As an alternate example, can a woman who knows she is pregnant (but isn't visibly pregnant yet) buy alcohol at a bar and drink? I suppose she is exercising her "freedom"... 🙄 Is exercising one's "freedom" always "moral"? Just because something is not expressly forbidden by law does not mean it's morally commendable.)
- In fact, the World Health Organization considers tobacco use to be such an urgent health concern worldwide, that it will not hire smokers as employees.
There is no LAW that smokers are forbidden to work in healthcare. But the WHO recognizes that in order for its well-researched recommendations to be taken seriously, its employees must adhere to a higher standard of behavior than the general population. Don't like it? Tough. Don't work for WHO.
Similarly, doctors' recommendations against smoking aren't going to be taken very seriously if they are seen puffing away right outside the hospital during lunch break.
Like it or not, smokers ARE role-models in certain contexts. WHO employees seen smoking are sabotaging the mission of their organization. Parents who smoke while urging their kids not to are sabotaging their own credibility as authority figures in the home.
...And doctors who smoke (especially while on hospital grounds) are sabotaging the credibility of their own medical advice. It's true that NO doctor can force any patient to take his or her advice. OTOH, if a doctor knowingly continues behavior that sabotages his or her own credibility as a medical caregiver, s/he is consciously choosing not to provide the best possible care to his/her patients. A doctor is honor bound to do his or her best to TRY to get the patient to follow his or her medical advice.
It's hard to imagine a doctor who smokes being able to advise a patient about the dangers of smoking with "real concern", beyond a mechanical recitation of smoking's "dangers" (which would, for the patient, probably go in one ear and right out the other).
Of course, there's no LAW that spells out exactly what constitutes "trying one's best"... only YOU know, in your heart, whether you're merely going through the motions (doing the bare minimum to cover your a$$ and not get sued), or whether you are actually giving your best effort.
Mechanical recitation of smoking's "risks" != doing one's best as a physician, imho. Considering the fact that smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in adults in the world, such behavior is tantamount to negligence.
In short, the significance of doctors who smoke is NOT the fact that their own bodies are getting damaged. The significance lies in the fact that smoking violates a fundamental tenet of medicine- first, do no harm-
in two ways: one, directly harming others via secondhand exposure; and two, handicapping their own abilities to provide the best care possible to their patients.
I DON'T have a problem with doctors who choose not to take the best possible care of their OWN bodies.
I DO have a problem with doctors who are choosing to harm others.
Sometimes a person's "freedom" to choose comes into conflict with his or her obligation to others.
For example, a pregnant mother's desire for a couple of beers runs directly counter to her obligation to ensure the health of her unborn child. In that case, I would hope the mother would uphold her moral obligation, even though she has the freedom to choose not to do so.
Hey unsung, you're a true idealist, and I commend you.
Most people don't like to hold themselves accountable to the negative impacts of their decisions and are very accomplished at rationalizing them away. I would pretty much agree that when people first make the decision to start smoking, they are making an immoral decision (disregarding the impact on other people's health and in support of some pretty evil agendas, such as getting everyone's little sister addicted to cigarettes, etc.). After that though, addiction takes over (as has been discussed ad nauseum).
My life philosophy is to try my best to live a life that is sustainable and doesn't inadvertently promote big bad things like cruelty, jihad, and suffering. It takes a lot of research and effort to stay informed about things, and a lot of coming to grips with being a hypocrite (how many times have I been on an airplane this year? ick) and also dealing with people who don't understand your choices and mock you.
Everybody says they are inspired by people like Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, etc, but when it comes to emulating that commitment to goodness and rightness, people really tend to let themselves off the hook (me too, but I think I'm trying harder than average).
Most people don't like to hold themselves accountable to the negative impacts of their decisions and are very accomplished at rationalizing them away. I would pretty much agree that when people first make the decision to start smoking, they are making an immoral decision (disregarding the impact on other people's health and in support of some pretty evil agendas, such as getting everyone's little sister addicted to cigarettes, etc.). After that though, addiction takes over (as has been discussed ad nauseum).
My life philosophy is to try my best to live a life that is sustainable and doesn't inadvertently promote big bad things like cruelty, jihad, and suffering. It takes a lot of research and effort to stay informed about things, and a lot of coming to grips with being a hypocrite (how many times have I been on an airplane this year? ick) and also dealing with people who don't understand your choices and mock you.
Everybody says they are inspired by people like Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, etc, but when it comes to emulating that commitment to goodness and rightness, people really tend to let themselves off the hook (me too, but I think I'm trying harder than average).
I don't see a problem with a doctor who smokes cigarettes but it is in their best interest to be discreet about it. It is however somewhat hypocritical and definitely not immoral. It really isn't as big of a deal as some people make this issue out to be. let people choose their own life/deathstyles.
Man, I am sick of all of these no-smoking nazis. How would it ever be immoral? What the doctor does outside the hospital is his/her own business. Your job is to treat the patient and make them better, not to be some infallible, non-smoking role-model.
Okay, this is just getting ridiculous. Why does anybody give a **** about whether or not doctors smoke? Are we going to go around yelling at cardiologists for eating hamburgers too?
I'm sure it'd be a completely different story if the physician was blatantly blowing smoke into his patient's face, but something in me tells me that this doesn't happen.
God, I hate pre-meds.
I'm sure it'd be a completely different story if the physician was blatantly blowing smoke into his patient's face, but something in me tells me that this doesn't happen.
God, I hate pre-meds.
D
da8s0859q
D
da8s0859q
This story I have heard from my friend who is an anesthetialogist.
Healthy lungs are pinkinsh in color and lungs of people who smoke change color over a period of time; they become greyish, darkish. Common people cannot see this for obvious reasons.
My friend used to work with a lung surgeon who could see with his own eyes the effect of smoking on the lungs. However during this typical four hour lung surgery, this surgeon would take a 5 minute break after 2 hours, go out of OR and smoke a cigarette and come back!!
Healthy lungs are pinkinsh in color and lungs of people who smoke change color over a period of time; they become greyish, darkish. Common people cannot see this for obvious reasons.
My friend used to work with a lung surgeon who could see with his own eyes the effect of smoking on the lungs. However during this typical four hour lung surgery, this surgeon would take a 5 minute break after 2 hours, go out of OR and smoke a cigarette and come back!!
I would cast the doctor-patient role in a somewhat different light; the physician is a caregiver, an advisor, a teacher but not a leader to their patients (though they may in many cases be a leader among their fellow healthcare professionals).
I like the idea of setting a good example, but there's more than one way to skin a cat, as they say. When I relate to patients, I am as honest as possible. That said, I will frame that truth in a way that acheives what I'm trying to acheive with the patient. If I were a smoking doctor, I might say this:
"I know how hard this is -- I'm addicted to cigarettes too. I've tried to quit, and I've failed, so I know what you're struggling with. We both need to quit, and just as my doctor keeps the pressure on me to try again, I'm going to keep talking to you about smoking."
Being a paragon of good health is one way to inspire patients -- but there are other ways, too. As others have pointed out, there's power in admitting you're human.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I don't think smoking cigarettes as a health professional means you're hypocritical. There's nothing wrong with someone who is addicted to cigarettes to tell someone else to never start.
It's just like jumping off a 30 ft ledge and breaking ur leg and then telling someone else not to jump off the same ledge because they'll probably break their leg too (among other possibilities). Obviously you're not going to jump off the ledge again but with cigarettes, you're addicted. It's not as easy as just not doing it.
I don't think most people that haven't had the experience of being addicted to cigarettes quite understand how hard it is to quit. It is easier for some than others. Of course it can be argued that you just didn't try hard enough. But how many things could you have done if you just "tried hard enough"?
It's just like jumping off a 30 ft ledge and breaking ur leg and then telling someone else not to jump off the same ledge because they'll probably break their leg too (among other possibilities). Obviously you're not going to jump off the ledge again but with cigarettes, you're addicted. It's not as easy as just not doing it.
I don't think most people that haven't had the experience of being addicted to cigarettes quite understand how hard it is to quit. It is easier for some than others. Of course it can be argued that you just didn't try hard enough. But how many things could you have done if you just "tried hard enough"?
