Tobacco/nicotine testing

[nimbus]

I saw this on a website for a new medical school in Michigan.

http://med.wmich.edu/education/students/future-students/admission-requirements

They will rescind your admission if you fail a nicotine test at orientation. I found it sensible and surprising at the same time.

• Alcohol/illicit drug/tobacco drug testing. All applicants are required to undergo testing during orientation for alcohol, tobacco (which screens for cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, snuff, nicotine patches and nicotine gum) and controlled substances. Applicants who test positive on the initial test are required to undergo additional testing. Applicants in violation of this policy who do not comply with required monitoring will have their conditional admission rescinded and will not be permitted to re-apply for admission for one class year. Students are not permitted to use tobacco and nicotine products, controlled substances without a prescription, or abuse alcohol.

Is this the future?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted171991]

I am not a (ab)user of any of these substances, but this should be illegal. It's absolutely none of their business.

What's next, no sex during med school?

 

[MedMinded]

I saw this on a website for a new medical school in Michigan.

http://med.wmich.edu/education/students/future-students/admission-requirements

They will rescind your admission if you fail a nicotine test at orientation. I found it sensible and surprising at the same time.

• Alcohol/illicit drug/tobacco drug testing. All applicants are required to undergo testing during orientation for alcohol, tobacco (which screens for cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, snuff, nicotine patches and nicotine gum) and controlled substances. Applicants who test positive on the initial test are required to undergo additional testing. Applicants in violation of this policy who do not comply with required monitoring will have their conditional admission rescinded and will not be permitted to re-apply for admission for one class year. Students are not permitted to use tobacco and nicotine products, controlled substances without a prescription, or abuse alcohol.

Is this the future?

This is definitely an invasion of privacy. I can understand testing for substance abuse in regards to illegal drugs but otherwise, it's that applicants personal life.

And how can they test for alcohol abuse? Does any alcohol in your system become categorized as abuse? What if they had a drink for lunch?

I don't even smoke, but people shouldn't be persecuted for doing so. It's their life and they're doing nothing illegal. As long as it's on their own time and away from others, it's a non issue.

 

[pgg]

I wonder if the school's cafeteria offers beverages containing high fructose corn syrup and/or cups exceeding 16 oz.

 

[nimbus]

I don't like the nanny state any more than the next guy, but this is a private organization. To what extent can they set their own rules? Nobody is forced to apply there. If you must smoke, don't apply. On the other hand, I'm sure they get significant government funding. One could argue that the rule violates the Americans with Disabilities Act on the basis of nicotine addiction.

 

[deleted171991]

Even if they have zero government funding, private organization does not mean the right to invasion of privacy, no more than the right to discriminate people based on race etc.

 

[nimbus]

I wonder if the school's cafeteria offers beverages containing high fructose corn syrup and/or cups exceeding 16 oz.

Loma Linda does not serve meat in theirs.

 

[Orin]

They will rescind your admission if you fail a nicotine test at orientation. I found it sensible and surprising at the same time.

Is this the future?

This is the now man, Cleveland Clinic has been doing nicotine testing for all new employees for a while.

Cleveland Clinic maintains a drug-free and tobacco-free workplace. All newly hired employees undergo urine drug testing as a condition of employment. This test quantifies the presence of illicit drugs and cotinine (nicotine metabolite). According to Cleveland Clinic policy, newly hired employees who have cotinine levels above the threshold will have their employment offer rescinded. Those individuals testing positive that test negative after 90 days, may be reconsidered for appointment at the discretion of the candidate's supervisor, should the position remain vacant.

 

[pgg]

Even if they have zero government funding, private organization does not mean the right to invasion of privacy, no more than the right to discriminate people based on race etc.

Well no, there's an important legal difference - race (like color, gender, national origin, religion, and some other things) is a protected class codified by law. Smokers are not a protected class.

Loma Linda does not serve meat in theirs.

One of the places I moonlight (an Adventist hospital) won't serve pork. Breakfast without bacon is like no breakfast at all. Turkey bacon is the real abomination.

 

[deleted171991]

We are not talking about religious food interdictions; one still has the choice of going to eat elsewhere, and there are no other consequences. We are talking about discriminating adults based on their (legal) recreational choices, and invading their privacy in a manner that should be unacceptable to any person who doesn't think we live in North Korea. I hate the smell of smoke(rs) as much as the next person, but I strongly believe this is a matter of their choice (especially if they use electronic cigarettes), and one should not deny them a hard-earned entrance to medical school just because of social mores.

Shall we extend the courtesy of testing and firing to absolutely every member of the faculty, or do we think that only students need baby-sitting? Where does this stop? There is a huge difference between the person who smells like a chimney, and the one who smokes an occasional cigarette with his coffee. Not everybody who smokes or drinks is "addicted". What's the limit for "abuse" of alcohol? Where does this invasion of privacy stop? Why is the school's business what the student does in his own spare time and the privacy of his home, as long as it's not illegal?

This used to be the land of the free. There is nothing "sensible" about this. It's shameful and shameless, it's dictatorship of the majority, it's nanny-statism. And in this day and age, we all should be much more mindful of giving up our hard-earned liberties, or we will have young generations who won't know what is to be truly free... or brave.

 

[pgg]

There is nothing "sensible" about this. It's shameful and shameless.

I basically agree this is lame, but again, a distinction has to be made between protected classes and not protected classes. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of law.


You're talking about expanding the set of protected classes to include smokers. Do you really want to go there? What's next? More "anti-discrimination" laws to protect obese people? Will there be a BMI limit? How about people who don't bathe and smell bad? People who don't recycle? People with tattoos? People who ride noisy motorcycles? Felons who did their time and paid their debt to society?

People are free to not apply there.

What of an organization's freedom to choose not to be associated with behaviors it finds reprehensible?

 

[deleted171991]

What of an organization's freedom to choose not to be associated with behaviors it finds reprehensible?

Like they used to find race, religion or sexual orientation reprehensible?

Where does it stop? All I am arguing for is that any unpopular but private, harmless to others, behavior or habit should not be the basis for discrimination. Haven't we learned anything from the Prohibition era, or from all the classes/behaviors we discriminated against in the past? We should not have to make everything a "protected class", just because of intolerance or excessive political correctness. Where is common sense nowadays?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

P.S. I would also argue that any organization which benefits of significant tax advantages from the general public is not really a private organization (and should not be treated as such).

 

[partydoc]

Some of the places I interviewed at last year had a no nicotine policy. That being said they typically test you during orientation and then never again.

I think this will become new norm. It's all cost cutting and savings on insurance premiums.

 

[deleted171991]

That's BS. They can make you pay extra for insurance as a smoker; it's perfectly legal under Obamacare.

Anyway, alcohol use does not increase insurance premiums, so there is no excuse for the nanny-state.

 

[deleted126335]

I would prefer that smokers simply be charged a higher health insurance premium for their choice to smoke as opposed to being denied employment. The local hospital will not hire smokers among their regular old employees. However, the LLC that the hospital owns that employs the physicians has no such requirement. I suspect that the executive offices have a similar pass on that requirement

 

[norwood]

Alcohol/illicit drug/tobacco drug testing. All applicants are required to undergo testing during orientation for alcohol, tobacco (which screens for cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, snuff, nicotine patches and nicotine gum) and controlled substances. Applicants who test positive on the initial test are required to undergo additional testing. Applicants in violation of this policy who do not comply with required monitoring will have their conditional admission rescinded and will not be permitted to re-apply for admission for one class year. Students are not permitted to use tobacco and nicotine products, controlled substances without a prescription, or abuse alcohol.

Still don't get how they are 'testing' for alcohol abuse. Apart from seeing whether students smell like booze or are visibly intoxicated, what are they planning to do?

Also, not really getting the part about going after nicotine patches and gum. So if a prospective student's a current smoker and plans to use the patch or gum to quit, he's still up a creek?

 

[sevoflurane]

Not a smoker, but for crying out loud... What next? Won't hire you if you are an fmg, gay, fat or have an HDL less than 100? F'n stupid.
I'd look elsewhere as that says a lot of that particular institution.

 

[countingdays]

Unbelievable. Hopefully there's a lawsuit and hopefully they lose.

 

[gcc322]

There have been a few residency programs on the interview trail this year that made it known you'd be tested for tobacco before being allowed to enter the program. If positive, you'd be required to complete some bogus program and then be tested again. For me, this was lame. If your program isn't going to hire me because I take a few drags when I'm drunk or chew some snuff each week, I don't want to be there.

 

[nimbus]

There have been a few residency programs on the interview trail this year that made it known you'd be tested for tobacco before being allowed to enter the program. If positive, you'd be required to complete some bogus program and then be tested again. For me, this was lame. If your program isn't going to hire me because I take a few drags when I'm drunk or chew some snuff each week, I don't want to be there.

Bingo!

Programs can make their own rules and applicants can act accordingly. It is a matter of free will for both parties.

If the institutions lose too many quality applicants because of their policies, they may have to reconsider. Somehow I don't think that will happen.

 

[canjosh]

There have been a few residency programs on the interview trail this year that made it known you'd be tested for tobacco before being allowed to enter the program. If positive, you'd be required to complete some bogus program and then be tested again. For me, this was lame. If your program isn't going to hire me because I take a few drags when I'm drunk or chew some snuff each week, I don't want to be there.

The two programs that I remember mentioning this were UAB and Scott and White. The UAB program coordinator was downright apologetic about it, and couldn't believe it was legal. To be fair, these policies are the result of the human resources department in the institution(s) the residents train in. I'm pretty sure the residency programs had no say in the matter. I'm also pretty sure that more hospitals will move in this direction, right or wrong.