Why 'smoke-free' consultation should be declared null and void
Monday, September 26, 2016 at 17:09 A quick reminder that today is the closing date for submissions to Birmingham Children's Hospital's 'smoke-free' consultation.
It was hard to complete the online form without getting increasingly annoyed.
For example, in response to Section Two ('Please comment on any changes to the boundary you would like to see') I wrote:
This question demonstrates the basic inbuilt bias of this consultation because it doesn't allow for the fact that we do not support ANY no smoking zone outside the hospital, regardless of size. Likewise the questions in Sections Three and Four assume that a no smoking zone will be introduced regardless of the outcome of the consultation. For that reason we believe this consultation should be declared null and void.
Subsequently respondents are asked, 'Do you have any other comments about how we can create a smoke-free experience around our hospital for our patients and families?', to which I replied:
It is no business of the hospital trust to "create a smoke-free (sic) experience" outside the hospital grounds. Unless we are mistaken, the hospital trust doesn't own the local roads. What on earth are you doing telling people whether or not they can smoke when they're not even on the grounds?
And why are you proposing to use public funds (that could be better spent on other things) to put up signage and monitor the area in order to enforce this spiteful, uncaring proposal? Where is the empathy for patients, staff or visitors for whom a cigarette can offer comfort in what can be a highly stressful environment?
The trust is looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Smoking in the open air doesn't harm anyone other, perhaps, than the smoker, while the idea that children must be protected from the sight of someone smoking is Orwellian.
We understand why the trust doesn't want people smoking around the main entrance to the building but extending the ban to nearby streets is unjustified and extremely petty. Imagine if you're a smoker and you're the worried parent of a sick child in hospital. Why should you be admonished or made to feel like a leper if you choose to relieve some of the stress by lighting up in a nearby street? What harm are you doing to anyone?
As for the inclusion of e-cigarettes in the consultation, why would any health professional consider prohibiting the use of a product used by many people to quit smoking? All it demonstrates is that these proposals aren't about health at all. It seems the trust wants to dictate how adults behave even when patients, staff and visitors are not on hospital property. Do you have any idea what message this sends out about your priorities and your attitude to normal, decent people?
Finally I emphasised my general disgust by adding:
This is an extremely ill-conceived, ill-thought out consultation that is designed to generate only one result – the imposition of a no smoking zone outside hospital grounds. It is our view that this consultation is not fit for purpose and should be declared null and void.
After I submitted my comments I received a standard reply:
Thank you for taking part in the survey. The information will be used to help us understand whether to introduce a zone and if so, what it should look like.
Let me guess ...
Update: Some of the comments on the Forest Facebook page include:
"What a stupid idea and near a major road anyway."
"Right near a major road and the concern is about a bit of smoke? You couldn't make this up."
"They would be better off putting their efforts into sorting out the lack of parking for stressed out and worried parents."
This was my favourite however:
"Where should the signage be put up? I had to put 'inside the hospital' as there was no option for 'up your arse."
Last but not least Rob Lyons, campaigns manager for Forest's sister campaign Action on Consumer Choice, commented:
"As a born-and-bred Brummie who used to work close to Birmingham Children's Hospital I think this is a stupid and illiberal idea, designed by anti-smoking obsessives to colonise our streets.
"If air pollution is really such a problem perhaps the authorities should consider moving the hospital away from heavy traffic on the Queensway and the Aston Expressway.
"In reality this is a fabricated problem designed to demonise smokers even more than they already are."
If you haven't submitted a response you've got a few more hours (assuming the consultation closes at midnight).
Reader Comments (7)
As usual, it appears that the biased questions show their minds are already made up. Yet more cash wasted on an exercise that need not be done if they were honest about that. That is yet more cash that could be ploughed into saving children's lives when denied life saving drugs because they are too expensive. Anyone with sick children or relatives suffering with cancer should not blame smokers who pay more than anyone else for their treatment but those public health officials or anti smoker zealots who depend on taking cash from the NHS to fund their lifestyles
The 'smoke-free' consultation is a sham. They made their mind up before hand (as seen in the biased survey instrument) and offered it so they could claim they solicited public input. This is akin to elections in the former Soviet Union and makes a mockery of democratic process and community engagement.
Pat Nurse and I don't always agree, since I'm a vaper and Pat isn't terribly fond of us ;) However, I was a smoker for 30 years, and I honestly do still think of myself as a smoker. Pat is perfectly correct, smokers visiting sick relatives shouldn't be victimised in this fashion. Smokers shouldn't be victimised full stop. I'm happier as a vaper, but it's not for everyone. I'm proud of my contribution to the NHS for the 30 odd years I smoked and the amount I have raised to treat sick children.
I wish I'd thought of the 'up your arse' comment on the signage question - can't remember my responses to this fatuous survey now unfortunately.
I rather strongly suggested that they should concentrate their efforts on patient care and improving their woeful efficiency, rather than wasting time and resources on witch hunts against smoking.
Robert. I will be 100% behind vapers when they are 100% behind smoking. I cannot support a group that keeps banging on about how much better smokers lives would be if they vaped because it encourages the bullies in tobacco control and fails to take into account that smokers don't agree. We are fed up of being "helped" and worse, being patronised.
I was fighting for vapers right up to the point where they failed to fight for us on the TPD. I was told by vapers then that our fight is not the vapers fight.
That in a nutshell is my only problem.
I agree that "consultations" like this are a waste of time. They serve only to put money into the pockets of survey companies. The Health Trust will do what they want but it was ever thus. Campaigning against anti smoking/smoker measures has been a notable failure probably because most of the public don't like smokers very much. It's quite clear that smokers are now seen as an ignorant welfare dependent underclass who are too stupid to see the folly of their filthy habit.
Anyway, the good news is that smoking is a habit that is confined to about 17% of the population - a record low.
Indeed - every generation must have someone to hate. Look what "justified" hate did to people in Hitler's Germany. Oh, I forgot, smokers are not people nor subjected to prejudice such as all of them being addicts or welfare dependant.
I don't doubt for one minute that smoking rates are declining but that record low, btw, is the anti dream and we know antismokers lie about everything these days, In reality, I think you'll find the figure higher. The only thing smokerphobic thugs have done is persuade smokers not to buy in the UK and not to tell medics they smoke. Smokers cannot be counted. Those who enjoy just 3 cigs a day, for example, would probably not consider themselves to be "smokers" - the identity forced upon us to enable discrimination against us.