What’s Right and Wrong?

In my letter to Sandwell hospital’s Chief Executive, I wrote:

The [hospital’s] nine care standards, or promises are:

I will… make you feel welcome
I will… make time to listen to you
I will… be polite, courteous and respectful
I will… keep you informed and explain what is happening
I will… admit to mistakes and do all I can to put them right
I will… value your point of view
I will… be caring and kind
I will… keep you involved
I will… go the extra mile

May I ask in what way a “zero tolerance crackdown” on smoking will make smoking patients “feel welcome”? And equally in what way such a crackdown is “polite, courteous and respectful”? Or indeed “caring and kind”? And it seems to me that it will be your smoking patients who will actually be “going the extra mile” (to find somewhere to smoke).

I was asking questions. I was comparing the hospital’s own stated ethical code with what the hospital was proposing to do to smokers, and asking if they were in accord with each other.

And clearly they’re not. Preventing people from smoking anywhere in the hospital precinct clearly isn’t being “polite, courteous and respectful” to them: it is impolite, discourteous and disrespectful. And fining them if they smoke will not make smokers  “feel welcome”: it will make them feel very unwelcome indeed. And since smoking outdoors does no harm to anyone, any fine levied on someone smoking in the hospital grounds will amount to an act of theft.

They may as well put up large signs saying “Smokers Not Welcome”.

And it has nothing to do with the hospital’s core task of the care and treatment of the sick. It is in fact quite antithetical to that core task, because it is a form of mistreatment and lack of care.

I’ll go further. Banning people from smoking anywhere in a hospital’s grounds isn’t just impolite, discourteous and disrespectful: it’s an utterly vile thing to do. It’s an evil thing to do.

That’s what I think. And yet we have a hospital board of trustees which includes a Chief Nurse who says of the proposed exclusions and fines: “Having a staged approach to try to get people to stop smoking is the right thing to do morally.”

The right thing to do morally.

I think it’s just plain wrong to exclude, bully, and rob people. But what I think is wrong is what this man thinks is right!

Clearly we don’t share the same set of values. We have different ideas of what’s right and wrong.

But what do you think?


About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to What’s Right and Wrong?

  1. harleyrider1978 says:
  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    But what do you think?
    Simple our rights and liberties are not up for debate or vote by anyone. We decide for ourselves individually. Its an attack on individual rights that’s the worse of it all.

  3. Smoking Lamp says:

    I strongly believe that outdoor smoking bans at hospitals are wrong; so are all outdoor smoking bans. Indoor bans are also wrong since there is actually near zero risk from second hand smoke indoors. Now in the US the federal government is advocating a smoking ban in all public housing (essentially bans in peoples’ homes). Again there is no risk from second hand some–which is the justification for this draconian ban. It really us time to push back against these globally co-ordinated totalitarian control measures.

    • Chester Draws says:

      I hated working with smokers. Just the horrible nature of the air. I’ve also had restaurant meals ruined by smokers at the table next to mine. So I strongly supported indoor bans. Smokers don’t seem to realise their habit is totally noxious. The “danger” was never an issue.

      None of that applies to outdoor bans, which I don’t support. If you want to smoke then provided it isn’t in my air then I really don’t care.

      But please, that “second hand” smoke is not dangerous, doesn’t make it pleasant.

      • Smoking Lamp says:

        If you don’t like smoke in a smoking establishment go to a ‘smoker’ establishment. Smoking wasn’t widely consider ‘noxious’ until the Antismoker propaganda took hold–which by the way was justified on the ‘danger’. Your statement that the alleged ‘danger’ was never an issue does not actually stand up to the history of political action to force bans. I agree there never was an actual danger, but alleged ‘danger’ and fear-mongering were the tool s used to enact the bans.

      • Roobeedoo2 says:

        Better out than in? Do you really think we smokers are ickle, bickle babies..?

        Oh Clicky, did you really have to?

        You know reading the inanity of your justifying thought process, Chester, “second hand” by the means of this Smokers’ blog comment thread is turning my stomach somewhat. But that’s entirely my problem so I’ll just go and make myself feel better…

        No, Clicky, wrong clip! I wanted ‘Blackadder II’, when he’s forced to sell his house because of Queenie’s capriciousness…”so you crap out of the window?”. That’s far too graphic a picture you’re drawing for Chester le Piss Artist, here. Hear!

      • The Blocked Dwarf says:

        Just the horrible nature of the air

        Your honesty does you credit Sir, would that more anti-smokers were thus.No nonsense about saving the cheeldreeen, no Third Reich pseudo science, just a plain, simple, honest ‘find it noxious’. I sometimes wonder if some people, some poor souls, are genetically (?) predisposed to find cigarette smoke unpleasant, whilst others experience it as something delightful.

        • nisakiman says:

          Yes, it’s odd, really. My mother, who was a never smoker, loved the smell of tobacco; particularly those Dutch pipe tobaccos (which I myself find rather too sickly sweet).

          But Chester, as you say, is at least honest about his dislike. And if we had the situation where bars and restaurants had the choice of being smoking or non-smoking, then he would never need to be next to a smoker, and we would actually have places to go to drink and smoke in comfort. Win win, really. And it’s this fact which shows anti-smokers up for what they really are. Selfish and vindictive bigots.

          I’m glad I don’t have to put up with that sort of intolerance. I’m sure being permanently pissed off about the situation (which like Frank, I would be if I lived in UK) would shorten my life, and would most certainly drastically lower my levels of satisfaction with my life in general.

        • Roobeedoo2 says:

          The problem for me, Dwarfy, is when one of the people you admire the most in the world and you’ve spent the last 16 years tirelessly supporting and growing their business and their flourishing career, turns round and justifies the bans in exactly the same terms as old Chesty does. Happily admits the science is hokum but still thinks the bans are one of the best things to ever happen.

          It does him credit, does it? Clicky, if you please…

          Oh, now you’re just overegging it, Clicky

        • The Blocked Dwarf says:

          It does him credit, does it?

          Yes it does. Having a crippled kid myself, I support any disabled person speaking up for themselves. Chester was born with an inability to enjoy one of the finest scents on God’s good earth. Indeed not only can he take no pleasure from it , he finds it ‘noxius’. Truly an awful disability, but for the grace of God…

          Can you imagine not being able to experience the almost sensual caress of that post cotial ciggy? How it must be to have to have a digestive with your after dinner coffee? Imagine trying to wake up and face a new cold grey British morn without the Goddess Nicotiana speeding resolve and calm through your veins while you wait for the coffee to cook and Radio4 to finish the ‘Body Count’.

          Imagine never being able to watch a beautiful woman smoke,to watch how her lips tease the shaft…..*at this point dwarf feels the need for a cold shower*

        • roobeedoo2 says:

          Blimey! Hadn’t thought of it like that before…

          Chester – sorry for your loss

          Now Dwarfy don’t block the shower, I’m getting in there with you… *shivers*

        • The Blocked Dwarf says:

          Blimey! Hadn’t thought of it like that before…

          You can see it all from where i stand….

          ..outside in the rain and cold having a smoke with the rest of The Legion Of The Damned.

        • Roobeedoo2 says:

          Couldn’t you just find some skirt to shelter under? *innocent face*

      • margo says:

        I’ve always hated: sitting in a train with people who are eating smelly food, working in a room with someone who wears smelly perfume or after-shave, those ghastly noxious ‘air freshener’ things in rooms and cars, having to share a bus with people who don’t wash, the stink of next door’s barbecue on a sunny day … and then there are all the sounds I hate. I’m a very sensitive person. But it has never occurred to me that all these things I hate should be banned.

        • The Blocked Dwarf says:

          with someone who wears smelly perfume or after-shave,

          *feels your pain* We raised 3 sons who all hit puberty and discovered ‘Maedls ‘ (‘girls’) at around the same time-being less than a year apart in ages relatively. Each, even my crippled son, used a can of , oh so appropriately named, “AXE” ® spray deo a day (Axe is “Lynx” in the yUK I believe) and each felt his body required a different flavour of the aforementioned “Smelly”.
          There were mornings when at breakfast the fumes wafting around the breakfast table were not only overpoweringly noxious but even led to The Bestes Anti Smoking Frau In The World saying ;” Dwarfy-Schatzl for F**KS SAKE light up a ciggy before we all pass out or choke to death on our own vomit on ‘the best a man can get’ and ‘Der Duft, der Frauen provoziert'[the smell that provokes women].”

          And don’t get me started on the other habit of German males. Saturday morning it is Vater’s job to walk to the bakery (there is one every other street in Germany, it is a law) and get the bread rolls for Saturday breakfast….after having first showered, shaved and anointed every centimetre of skin with whatever ‘smelly’ they got bought for their last birthday. Love the smell of fresh baked bread? Not saturday morning in any German bakery you wouldn’t. Takes several cups of coffee before your bread roll will taste of bread and not Brut.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Chester whoever you are you obviously are one of the Nazis we fight everyday. Id suggest your here because anti-tobacco is about to fall part as a political agenda. The science is bunk its been destroyed and all that’s left is the hate that drove fanatics to start with. You might as well start getting use to the idea the bans have met their political end once obamas gone. He and his ilk alone are responsible for nearly all of todays pushes and forced enactment of bans. That political will is dead. That was just proven in Kentucky where our new governor won a landslide victory against the nannystate and that included all the hoopla from the Nazis polling they always claimed 70% and more want a ban,the vote for governor showed that not to be the case anywhere near. A full 65-70% of the states voters don’t want any smoking bans. Its only local authorities who rammed soking bans down peoples throats that had any success. Biut that only because the carrot was a bushel of city grant money from the federal govmnt/Obama if they passed a ban.

        The grant money vine is dying,that money will not be renewed in the future…….

        That makes future city councils without a greedy basis to keep a ban in effect much less enforce one.

        • Frank Davis says:

          Chester whoever you are you obviously are one of the Nazis we fight everyday.

          I thought Chester was far more honest than any Nazi. And he didn’t agree with the outdoor smoking bans these Nazis want.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          True Frank but that’s likely just a come on Id suspect. Time will tell.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          I hated working with smokers. Just the horrible nature of the air. I’ve also had restaurant meals ruined by smokers at the table next to mine. So I strongly supported indoor bans. Smokers don’t seem to realise their habit is totally noxious. The “danger” was never an issue.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          You see Frank all he ever had to do was choose one of the more than 70% smokefre indoor restaraunts at anytime,why did he have to eat where he knew smoking was allowed………He isn’t being honest at all.

      • beobrigitte says:

        Firstly, like others before me, I would like to thank you, Chester, for your honesty.

        Smokers don’t seem to realise their habit is totally noxious.
        People who love the smell of a lamb joint in the oven don’t seem to realise that they have ruined quite a few meals for me, especially now, since the latest fashion appears to be the area of the kitchen being open for view (and smells!) in restaurants….
        To me, the smell of a lamb joint in the oven cooking away is one of the worst things in life.
        Nevertheless, I do not avoid these places – perhaps one fine day I will get used to the smell.

        The “danger” was never an issue.
        Indeed. The former German Bundeskanzler Helmut Schmidt (a life time heavy smoker) died ‘prematurely’ a few days ago at the age of 96.
        Alzheimers/Dementia wasn’t an issue – his mind was as functional as it was in the 1970s!

        The “danger” is fictional – it was the only way to lobby the (much hated) smoking ban.
        The best solution prior to the dictation of the smoking ban was the separation of the smoking/non-smoking parts. Some places (pubs/hotels/restaurants) had it down to perfection; a separate smoking bar from a non-smoking bar.
        Other places opted for an equally as good way – they invested heavily in air cleaning/ventilation. I actually sat in this restaurant grumpily at the time – until one guy a couple of tables away asked for an ashtray, which he was served.
        My non-smoking relatives were as baffled as me, as there was no smell of cigarette smoke.

        We don’t have to push people into isolation and misery (as the anti-smoking group is inciting), we can make a place for smokers and non-smokers alike.

  4. John Watson says:

    To quote FD Roosevelt “There is nothing to fear but fear itself” pretty much sums it up!

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    The little-told story of how the U.S. government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition.

    It was Christmas Eve 1926, the streets aglitter with snow and lights, when the man afraid of Santa Claus stumbled into the emergency room at New York City’s Bellevue Hospital. He was flushed, gasping with fear: Santa Claus, he kept telling the nurses, was just behind him, wielding a baseball bat.

    Before hospital staff realized how sick he was—the alcohol-induced hallucination was just a symptom—the man died. So did another holiday partygoer. And another. As dusk fell on Christmas, the hospital staff tallied up more than 60 people made desperately ill by alcohol and eight dead from it. Within the next two days, yet another 23 people died in the city from celebrating the season.

    Doctors were accustomed to alcohol poisoning by then, the routine of life in the Prohibition era. The bootlegged whiskies and so-called gins often made people sick. The liquor produced in hidden stills frequently came tainted with metals and other impurities. But this outbreak was bizarrely different. The deaths, as investigators would shortly realize, came courtesy of the U.S. government

    Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.

    Although mostly forgotten today, the “chemist’s war of Prohibition” remains one of the strangest and most deadly decisions in American law-enforcement history. As one of its most outspoken opponents, Charles Norris, the chief medical examiner of New York City during the 1920s, liked to say, it was “our national experiment in extermination.” Poisonous alcohol still kills—16 people died just this month after drinking lethal booze in Indonesia, where bootleggers make their own brews to avoid steep taxes—but that’s due to unscrupulous businessmen rather than government order.


    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Today we hear the Nazis screaming bootleg tobacco has rodent excrement in it along with varying degrees of higher substances in it than legal tobacco has, remember swept up feces into the tobacco from the dirty floors where its made claim……….not much different than what the government claimed back in the day.

        Bootleggers of alcohol during prohibition sometimes used the car radiator over the weekend to run that weeks mash mix after fermentation. Problem was the radiators were heavily made of lead. Which led to high LEAD poisoning in the drinkers. Much of this was averted when Gangland bosses bought up old soda bottling plants and sterilization became a normal process. I mean what gangster or businessman wants to poison his best customers……….rather counter productive ehh! Now the government that’s a different deal altogether these people do it for hate and that’s about it. They don’t care who they kill in the process.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          High taxation in Indonesia on alcohol is the same as prohibition especially among the poor as they cant pay the goverments ripoff taxes and its the same for tobacco. So you get thriving blackmarkets in every commodity the governments strike at. Bootleg simply means all of us our capitalists at heart and it will always be there to meet the demand of the free.

        • harleyrider1978 says:
  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    Mme Jeanne Calment, who was listed as the world’s oldest human whose birth date could be certified, died at 122. She had begun smoking as a young woman. At 117 she quit smoking (by that age she was just smoking two or three cigarettes per day because she was blind and was too proud to ask often for someone to light her cigarettes for her). But she resumed smoking when she was 118 because, as she said, not smoking made her miserable and she was too old to be made miserable. She also said to her doctor: “Once you’ve lived as long as me, only then can you tell me not to smoke.” Good point! [USA Today, “Way to go, champ,” 10/18/95]
    The oldest people on Earth are all smokers.

    According to the World Health Organization and the statisticians of the anti-tobacco cartel, however, these are (or will be) all premature deaths, for the simple reason that they are smokers. Therefore, these individuals did (or will) add to the smoking-related death epidemic figures that the charlatans of the numerous anti-tobacco organizations keep waving in front of politicians, media, and public.

    • beobrigitte says:

      By abusing old peoples’ diseases it’s easy for the anti-smokers to exploit the astronomical figures of dead people. People don’t live forever….

      Isn’t it high time we get life and joy back into our miserable existences?

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Beo they cleverly started calling old age diseases tobacco related way back in the 1950s. Its been going on since then.

  7. garyk30 says:

    Chester said:
    “If you want to smoke then provided it isn’t in my air then I really don’t care.”

    You OWN air?

    Or do you just occupy space and claim ‘rights’ to what ever air may drift thru.

    After you leave, does that air still belong to you or do you have special air that goes where ever you go?

    Are you as conceited as you sound?

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      exactly nobody has a right to clean air and nobody owns the air. Except for indoors which is owned by the owner of the building and its his or hers decision to whats acceptable be it lit candles giving off chemicals or humans and their 3500 chemical releases with every exhalation or a smokers smoke…………its all the same air! Open the window and let the car smog get you or simply accept the fact the air is what the hell it is at any given time and learn to be content with yourself. Otherwise your going to die a very miserable little twerp!

  8. Clicky says:

  9. Pingback: Nowhere To Run | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.