Option 2: Smokers Need Not Apply While tobacco use is the leading cause of preve

Question

Option 2: Smokers Need Not Apply

While tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, the country has undergone a substantial cultural shift in regard to smoking. Due to recent changes such as the banning of cigarette vending machines, the creation of no smoking policies, and increased education about the health impacts of tobacco use, the prevalence of smoking has decreased substantially. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that smoking-related medical care costs $170 billion dollars annually. In the interests of employee productivity, as well as saving on the cost of employees’ health insurance, some employers will no longer hire smokers. Hospitals in particular have taken the lead in adopting such policies, but they are not the only employers making this change. Some states have laws that prohibit this kind of discrimination against smokers in hiring but many others do not.

While the prevalence of smoking has declined, it has not done so evenly across groups. Prevalence is higher than average among non-Hispanic multiple race individuals, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Blacks. Prevalence is also higher among populations with low socioeconomic status, within the LGBTQ community, and among those who have not graduated high school or who have a GED. As mentioned above, supporters of anti-tobacco employment policies cite both health insurance costs as well as employee productivity as important factors. In addition, healthcare professions and healthcare settings note that healthcare workers who smoke are setting a terrible example and sending a very bad message to patients. Advocates also argue that such policies create an incentive for prospective employees to quit smoking.

Detractors point out that policies that exclude employees who smoke infringe on employee freedom by dictating their behavior even when they are not at work. Moreover, to the extent that smoking is addictive and difficult to quit, these policies punish smokers for their addiction no matter their efforts to stop smoking. Another worry is that these policies have a disproportionately negative impact on poor and disadvantaged populations. This exclusion is especially worrisome given that many of these populations already struggle with employment discrimination and are already underrepresented in many professions, including those in healthcare settings.

Study Questions:

(1) Is there a morally significant difference between anti-tobacco employment policies in a healthcare setting as contrasted with other kinds of employment?

(2) When, if ever, is it morally permissible for employers to discriminate on the basis of tobacco use? Is it morally permissible to exclude applicants that engage in other health risk behaviors, such as eating unhealthy foods or drinking alcohol?

(3) When and to what extent should employers be allowed to exert control over employees’ lives?

Answer ethically

Explanation / Answer

1. Healthcare industry, unlike the other industries need clean hands to run the industry with its mission and vision that’s aligned to an overall wellbeing of people. People in the healthcare industry do not promote the use of tobacco as it causes cancer and other respiratory diseases. Passive smoking is one important reason why healthcare industry shouldn’t employ people who use tobacco because they might infect others either to smoke or inhale what they smoke. So, there is a morally significant difference between anti-tobacco employment policies in healthcare setting and in other kinds of employment.

2. When the objective of the employer is to promote a healthy work environment, the employer has all the rights to discriminate on the basis of tobacco use. When the employee affect others with their tobacco habit and put their lives under risk, the employer can discriminate against that employee. It is morally permissible to exclude applicants that engage in other health risk behaviors, such as eating unhealthy foods or drinking alcohol because they won’t be regular to work, they won’t be productive and they will definitely demotivate other employees.

3. An employee is answerable to the employer while they are at the job and the employer do not have any influence on the employee’s personal life with one exception where the employee involve in activities that would affect the employer and the company. That’s why the professional and personal lives should be treated separately, although, they affect each other to a certain extent.

Thank you for the question. Please rate if you like the answer.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse O
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.