Smoking Persuasive Essay

Smoking should be banned in Australia. Smoking is a disgusting habit that many Australians use every single day. The impact of banning smoking altogether in Australia would be a massive favour for everyone. Australian adults who smoke everyday and Australian Secondary Students from the age 12 to 17 smoke over 22 billion cigarettes per year and effecting other people to start smoking because they think it’s a cool way to get attention. But I think that banning it in almost all public places is a great idea but I raise this question to you, “Why not just Ban Smoking?” This question was raised in a ‘The Age’ article in 2013. The main point of the article is, smoking is banned in pretty much all public places and there are often neighbours writing to the council complaining about a smoking neighbour, so why not just ban it altogether?

Is smoking a cigarette like aiming a smoking gun to your head? Absolutely, yes! The photo above, has a very powerful message to be shared with people all over the world. The creator of the picture above is, The American Cancer Society. This is an organization that is trying to heighten awareness of the dangers of smoking, the most threatening danger being, cancer. They also promote relays which help raise money for ads and research. The money raised helps to inform people of the dangers smoking and what the negative outcomes of such a habit. This society also helps with finding treatment options. They are helping people cope with the side effects of various cancers or to advise on health insurance. A certain population of people, particularly young people, see smoking as a cool or hip idea to fit in. The goal of this visual argument is to inform people who smoke cigarettes that they should just hold a gun to their heads. The American people should be against nonsmoking because of the feelings you get when smoking, the chemicals that are involved, and how the cigarette will kill like a loaded gun.

Introduction This case arose when Jesse Williams died due to lung cancer after smoking three packs of Marlboros every day for 47 years of his life. Jesse Williams was a janitor in Portland, Oregon and he started smoking while he was in the army in the 1950s. Even though, he made several attempts to stop smoking he was unsuccessful each time. In his point of view, he said: “The cigarette companies would not sell them if they were dangerous.” When Williams learned about his inoperable lung cancer, he felt deceived by the cigarette companies.

Smoking tobacco is probably one of the worst habits humankind has developed. Originating as a tradition of the Native Americans, practiced mostly on special occasions, smoking has gradually become a kind of mass addiction. Due to the efforts of tobacco companies seeking to increase their sales, people started smoking more and more often; the evolution of a more traditional pipe to a cigarette took some time, but eventually tobacco became more affordable and easier to use (you now simply need to light it up, instead of having to always carry a tobacco pouch, stuff a pipe, puff it, and so on). As a result, deaths and health issues connected to tobacco consumption became a worldwide

Smoking kills. Smoking can cause cancer and other bad diseases. Also, companies have made cigarettes in different flavors which are worse than regular cigarettes. People who smoke can be addicted. If you try to stop smoking cold turkey, it will give you headaches and stomachaches. I wanted to research this topic because I have some really close friends and they have family that smoke. Their great-grandpa died from smoking. Also, I noticed a lot of people are dying because they made the bad decision to smoke. Some people started to smoke when they were teenagers. They got addicted to it, and now they can’t stop smoking. I wanted to try to find a way people who smoke can stop. How can countries solve and stop smoking? This problem can be solved and it will be solved because countries are starting to ban smoking from certain places.

In the lifetime of most, cigarette smoking is common occurrence noticed as you go throughout your community. In the medical setting, hospital professions see the disabling effects caused by smoking. Being a change agent in your society is necessary for enhancing the well-being of others through each community. Healthy People 2020 creates a goal to “reduce illness, disability, and death related to tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure” (2017) Seeing the effects of smoking in the medical setting it motivates professionals to educate our patients’ on smoking cessation. For the topic of this research, our group was motivated by understanding how well our education paid off and whether we were able to find more control in smoking

107). In this particular ethical dilemma, “healthcare workers who smoke are setting a terrible example and sending a very bad message to patients” (NHSEB, 2017, p. 7). This demonstrates that it does not appear to be a great example for the health professional to advise a patient against smoking, when the professional themselves are smokers. The theory of Utilitarianism would argue if patients are not allowed to smoke, it can be presumed that the expert staff members should not be allowed to smoke either. Generally speaking, there are typically more patients than there are workers, therefore making the non-smoking population larger than the smoking population. Allowing just the employees (who would be considered the minority in this situation) to smoke would create social status and health issues to those around the smoking employee. The first principle of Utilitarianism would consider this to be wrong, as an alternative would better benefit the

I agree that smoking is detrimental the human body in many aspects, and I cannot support that smoking is not harmful in any aspect. Health care professionals have the responsibility of informing patients that certain behaviors will interfere or worsen their medical condition. I do not agree that patients should be released from care, because of the choices that they live by. Everyone is entitled to health care, if they seek it. I came across an article, How Can We Balance Ethics and Law When Treating Smokers, that reiterated the fact that it is unethical to release patients or withhold treatment, because of the choice to smoke. In her article Senderovich (2016) wrote, “what many do not realize is that physicians are legally not allowed

Jay Whitehead, publisher of a magazine for human resources managers, says, “There is discrimination at many companies—and maybe even most companies—against people who smoke.” Even if applicants aren’t asked whether they smoke, it “doesn't mean that hiring managers turn off their sense of smell.” Paul Sherer, a smoker who was fired less than a week after taking a new job, says, “Not hiring smokers affects millions of people and puts them in the same category as women able to bear children, that is, people who contribute to higher health-care costs. It's unfair.” Law professor Don Garner believes that not hiring smokers is “an overreaction on the part of employers whose interest is cutting costs. If someone has the ability to do the job, he should get it. What you do in your home is your own business. … Not hiring smokers is ‘respiratory apartheid.’”

Action on Smoking on Health (ASH) has also called for malpractice lawsuit against doctors who didn’t follow the new Public Health Service (PHS) clinical practice strategies for smoking leaving This strategy introduce new things and force to give nicotine replacement, it will be helpful for the patients to leave smoking.

A number of states have passed some sort of law protecting employees from employer discrimination based on legal off-duty conduct, and many of these laws explicitly protect the use of tobacco products (Garcia, 2008). Some health systems have justified this ban under non-profit status, Garicia (2008) explains, smoking is often contrary to the mission of the health system and as non-profit entities, their mission is the key to their success. The opponents of banning smokers for the workforce claim that it provides undue hardship in obtaining or retaining employment (Sulzberger, 2011). While the legal aspect may still be gray in some areas, I find the social aspect already determined. If I were running an HCO, my recommendations would be to follow the plan of no longer hiring smokers, and not allowing smoking on the premises of the hospital, but perhaps grandfathering in the people who already work for the organization. If the HCO were to enact a ban on smoking for all employees, they would certainly need to offer cessation programs free to all current smokers. Not doing so could result in major pushback for the organization. My last recommendation would be to emphasize that the policy is about the effects of smoking and tobacco use, and not the user. Sulzberger (2011) says that this an important aspect of implementing a tobacco ban, this strategy helps employees understand that it’s the not action of smoking but the negative effects it has on both the user and those around

The marginal benefit and marginal cost of cigarettes are in competitive market equilibrium without government intervention, however, the negative social cost of smoking to society would likely lead to market failure without the involvement of the government (reference). Tobacco not only affects the health of its consumers, it can also affect the health of non-smokers who involuntarily inhale second-hand smoke (reference). With the continuation of tobacco consumption, society faces increased tax rates, a loss of productivity and an opportunity cost from patients suffering tobacco-induced health problems, potentially robbing others with unpreventable conditions from the medical resources and treatment they require. Each year Australians spend

Reorientating health services works to be a ‘preventative approach’ moving beyond curative and clinical services. This action area focuses on the reorientation of health services by research and health professionals discussing holistic health approaches and behaviours. This is applied through the National tobacco strategy through GP interventions. GP’s are advised by the ‘Australian general practice guide to ask their patients about to discuss smoking. The guidelines includes them to ask about their smoking status, assessing their ability to change, advise, assist and arrange appointments to view their progress. This approach is allows health professionals to prevent and encourage their patients to stop smoking. 15-20% of smokers who

“Even though professional ethics permits physicians to refuse to deliver non-emergent treatment if it conflicts with their personal, religious, or moral beliefs, this type of conscientious objection is usually reserved for controversial circumstances, such as the decision to perform an abortion or to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment” (Pawlik et. al, 2009). The refusal of treatment just because a physician does not agree with a patients’ lifestyle choices (i.e. smoking) is highly discouraged. Rather, medical professionals should maintain a relationship with such patient. This relationship can allow for education that assists them in reducing their behaviors (in this case tobacco dependence). If the patient cannot obtain treatment

This would be the opposite for the other article under review regarding the Ethics on treating smokers by blah blah. The journal article suggests that as smokers are responsible for their conditions they should not be provided medical care. I believe this would come back to the general guidelines of nursing and medical care. Ethically we are required to treat patients regardless causation of their disease.