Danville, PA – Hospital Won’t Hire Smokers; New Yorkers Outraged

    20

    Danville, PA – A major Pennsylvania health system will begin testing new hires for nicotine starting in February.

    Join our WhatsApp group

    Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email


    Danville-based Geisinger Health Systems says it will begin testing for use of cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, snuff, nicotine patches and gum as part of routine drug screening.

    At least two other hospital systems in the state — Susquehanna Health Systems in Williamsport and St. Luke’s in the Lehigh Valle — have already implemented similar policies.

    Amy Brayford, Geisinger’s head of human resources, says the goal is to improve the health of employees and provide a healthier environment for patients. Officials say the policy will apply only to incoming employees, not current personnel.

    Anyone who fails their nicotine test can kick the habit and reapply in six months.

    “It’s discriminatory,” fumed Margaret Hatcher, 58, of Clinton Hill, Brooklyn. “As long as people are qualified, they should be given an opportunity.”

    “That’s crazy, that’s not fair,” moaned Mindy Johnson, an administrative assistant at a research hospital.

    “If the best candidate to take care of me is a smoker, I’d much rather them take care of me than an inferior candidate who isn’t a smoker.”

    Geisinger serves more than 2.6 million residents in central and northeastern Pennsylvania and has nearly 15,000 employees.


    Listen to the VINnews podcast on:

    iTunes | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Podbean | Amazon

    Follow VINnews for Breaking News Updates


    Connect with VINnews

    Join our WhatsApp group


    20 Comments
    Most Voted
    Newest Oldest
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    username
    username
    12 years ago

    Geisinger is in the middle of nowhere. What do New Yorkers care what they do?

    12 years ago

    These two New Yorkers who object can whine all they want but they have no legal basis to protest. Smokers are not a “protected class” under Federal law or any state laws I’m aware of. Perhaps they should “kick their habit”, especially if they work in the health care field.

    Darth_Zeidah
    Darth_Zeidah
    12 years ago

    Much as I hate smoking and everything that goes with it, I have to ask whether active discrimination against smokers is legal or not.

    einer
    einer
    12 years ago

    Give it another couple years and there will start jumping up laws like no discrimination against smokers and against intergender marriage

    Chelmite
    Chelmite
    12 years ago

    Patients particularly those who suffer from respiratory issues should not be subjected to the second hand smoke that lingers on smokers even after they smoke.

    Member
    12 years ago

    They are doing this all over the USA now. I like that they are clearly health conscious, but I will tell you that this practice is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Tobacco is a legal substance and thus it is well withing the Americans right to pursue life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I do not think that there is any answer in sight, but hope that someday there is a lawsuit against one of these hospitals and perhaps a supreme court overview case.
    It is a shame because many people like to smoke less caustic things like a cigar or a smoking pipe which are not inhaled and thus less morbidity and mortality.
    Not to mention that there is a certain absolute right that the hospitals can not allow the smoking on their premises, but what if a person wishes to use a nicotine gum or patch to get through his working hours?
    This is unconstitutional.

    Butterfly
    Butterfly
    12 years ago

    What happens if a non smoker gets second hand smoke through floor boards like hard wood floors? Hire or no hire?? It is Catch-22 situation!!

    UnOrthodox
    UnOrthodox
    12 years ago

    While the smokers are not doing anything illegal, this is about liability and insurance coverage. They don’t want to be sued by patients and family’s who can say that they were affected by being in proximity to a smoker, and they don’t want to have to pay higher health care premiums for their employees who smoke.

    ablydec
    ablydec
    12 years ago

    ““It’s discriminatory,” fumed Margaret Hatcher, 58, of Clinton Hill.” He he. Was the pun intended??

    12 years ago

    To #8 - I&#8 217;m really surprised that a Physician such as yourself, would state that pipe and cigar smoking is not as risky as cigarette smoking. People have contracted throat cancer and have died from pipe and cigar smoking. Regarding not hiring smokers, many employers have adopted this policy. It makes sense, since healthy employees will take less sick days off, and less major medical claims will be filed from an employer&#8 217;s group health plan. From a personal experience, I&#8 217;m not happy when a contractor comes into my home smelling of cigarette smoke. His clothes still smell from a cigarette, which was recently smoked. I am much more comfortable in only hiring non-smoking contractors.

    Not_just_that___
    Not_just_that___
    12 years ago

    addiction is an illness and may qualify

    12 years ago

    I love the way the Daily News takes a wire service story and puts a New York spin on it by interviewing a couple of New Yorkers and then saying “New Yorkers outraged.”

    newtransplant
    newtransplant
    12 years ago

    I wish they’d implement it over here in the UK, the number of times that I have been attended to by a nurse just off her break stinking of cigarettes……… and other hospital staff….. I think we have to have a warning, like an allergy warning, I am allergic to second and thirs hand smoke, please do not attend me unless you are a non smoker…..