Albany Medical Center
 Search
Home / Caring / Educating / Find a Doctor / News / Give Now / Careers / About / Calendar / Directions / Contact
Topic: Discrimination
March 18, 2013 | Posted By John Kaplan, PhD

Recently the University of Pennsylvania Health System in Philadelphia announced that it would no longer hire tobacco smokers. This seemed like a smart move for several reasons. There are some pretty obvious benefits for the institution including reductions in employee health care costs, reduced rates of absenteeism due to sick days, fewer employee breaks, and the more minor advantages such as fewer people smelling of smoke. There are similarly benefits to individuals who can be convinced not to smoke by such policies. A longer healthier life spared of the expense and inconvenience of procuring these dangerous and addicting instruments should be reward enough. Thus firms which ban hiring of smokers help advance the cause of providing the twenty some percent of adults who still smoke a reason to quit. Moreover health care organizations seem to be the natural groups to take the lead in instigating this sort of social progress.

This is not a new trend. Turner Broadcasting System banned the hiring of smokers in the 1980s and has maintained this policy since. Similar bans on hiring smokers have been implemented by the Cleveland Clinic, Baylor University’s Hospital and the Geisinger Clinic. It all seems to make so much sense. Nevertheless there has been a reaction. Smokers are not a protected class under federal law. Federal law permits a company to discriminate against smokers. However no less than twenty-nine states , including here in New York State, have laws outlawing bans on the hiring of those who smoke. A list is provided here. This is a testimony to the power of the tobacco lobby.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

March 4, 2013 | Posted By Bruce D. White, DO, JD

Consider the following recent news articles. In one sentence, the alleged facts are that a hospital supervisor reassigned a 25-year-veteran neonatal intensive care unit nurse to “[honor] a father's request to not let black nurses treat his infant son.”

Patients and patients’ legally authorized representatives have rights in the provider-patient relationship. A number of states have codified some of these rights in statutes and regulations in ways that look like a “patient’s bill of rights.” Typical within these declarations are statements that give patients many broad choices with respect to care. Some may see this is an extension of a patient’s autonomous choices in healthcare delivery generally.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

SEARCH BIOETHICS TODAY
SUBSCRIBE TO BIOETHICS TODAY
ABOUT BIOETHICS TODAY
BIOETHICS TODAY is the blog of the Alden March Bioethics Institute, presenting topical and timely commentary on issues, trends, and breaking news in the broad arena of bioethics. BIOETHICS TODAY presents interviews, opinion pieces, and ongoing articles on health care policy, end-of-life decision making, emerging issues in genetics and genomics, procreative liberty and reproductive health, ethics in clinical trials, medicine and the media, distributive justice and health care delivery in developing nations, and the intersection of environmental conservation and bioethics.
TOPICS