Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Lumley Castle Hotel
Sponsored by
Chester-le-Street, www.lumleycastle.com
 
 
Friday, 3rd September 2010

Hospital smoking shelter u-turn

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
05 November 2009
Smoking shelters are to be put back up at Sunderland Royal Hospital after visitors and patients refused to stick to a ban on lighting up.
Fed-up bosses reluctantly decided to bring the shelters back after smokers frequently flouted the rules – and staff suffered growing abuse when they tried to stop them.

The shelters were removed in 2006, when smoking was outlawed from the hospital grounds, in addition to buildings, in a move described as "one of the biggest advances in public health in Sunderland".

But since then, smokers have regularly ignored the ban and are often seen puffing away at entrances to the hospital.

Les Boobis, medical director of City Hospitals Sunderland, said: "Our staff were getting subjected to increasing abuse and threats from smokers when they were trying their best to stop them."

"It was felt that the sensible thing to do is give people a place where we can insist they go to smoke, without smoking round entrances."

Mr Boobis added: "I find it very disappointing that responsible adults will continue to smoke right in the hospital entrance when they know they shouldn't be, and that the smoke is drifting into the hospital, upsetting staff and patients."

The decision to bring back smoking shelters was taken by City Hospitals Sunderland's boards of directors and governors.

Two shelters will be built – one adjacent to the main entrance and the other opposite the maternity unit.

Mr Boobis said he had opposed the return of the shelters because he felt it was an "admission of defeat" in combating smokers on site.

He added: "Smokers have got to look and reflect on what they are doing.

"Hospital is a place where sick people are looked after and staff have a right not to be exposed to second-hand smoke."

"We get complaints from relations and patients about smoke."

Mr Boobis says that the litter caused by cigarette butts is also a problem.

He added: "It is terribly untidy, there's a huge amount of litter.
City Hospitals Sunderland became a smoke-free zone on No Smoking Day 2006, when the new rules prevented people from lighting up anywhere on the trust's property.

However, there was no legal action that could be taken against people breaking the ban.

Mr Boobis said: "It's a shame the Government didn't introduce legislation that allowed us to enforce no smoking on site.

"If people feel we have no power they will just ignore us."


Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 05 November 2009 10:29 AM
  • Source: Sunderland Echo
  • Location: Sunderland
 
Prev
1
Next
1

Teasmaid,

Hetton 05/11/2009 11:22:01
I can understand how when in a stressful situation people may feel they need a cig, having just had bad news etc. But a shelter outside the maternity?! You see all the mums to be in their dressing gowns, having the last one before they get their epidural in. It's disgusting and makes Sunderland look a disgrace.
2

Nitro,

05/11/2009 22:35:14
If Mr Boobis carried out even some cursory research he will find that so called second hand smoke is no more than water vapour and causes no more harm than a few cups of coffee.

Mr Boobis is just following the government line to carry out a social engineering experiment to totally eradicte tobacco and smoking.

Why is an admission of defeat?, smoking is a legal persuit carried out by approx 25% of the population and is perfectly acceptable, what gives people like Mr Boobis the right to try and invent their own rules just because of anti smoking dogma.




3

lordsid,

05/11/2009 23:41:27
How is it that the persecution of a large percentage of the population is considered "one of the biggest advances in public health in Sunderland"? This sounds more like Nazi propaganda.It surely doesn't "advance" anyone's health.Air quality testing done by OSHA (U.S. Dept. of Labor),Oak Ridge Nat'l Lab.,(U.S. Dept. of Energy) etc. all find that second-hand smoke levels are well within safe limits.Add to this the fact that there have been a great number of studies that found that there isn't any statistical risk from second-hand smoke in the first place.It should be obvious to all by now that all this "smoker bashing" has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's health."Harm" from second-hand smoke is essentially a rumor,usually raised by people that simply hate smokers.Causation cannot be shown using statistical science.(USSG for one) Smoking bans,of any type,are nothing more than a form of ethnic cleansing and should be regarded as hate crimes.

So called tobacco control policies,like smoking bans,cause much harm.This harm is both financial and physical,including death.What ethical medical practitioner would condone such policies? What has become of "first I will do no harm"?
4

english charlie,

06/11/2009 13:04:46
Common sense at last.
A smoking shelter built away from the entrance will stop people smoking outside the entrance.
A smoking shelter with ash trays will help prevent cigarette ends from ending up on the ground.
5

tug f wilson,

06/11/2009 13:23:53
If the hospital want to look after the health of All people then they should provide a dry,warm well ventilated area Inside the hospital for those responsible adults who choose to smoke,a great many of the doctors,nurses,other staff and visitors would welcome such a area,and it would show a great deal of common sense.
Prev
1
Next

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 

Today's Vote

Who do you want to win the Labour leadership race?
Diane Abbott
Ed Balls
Andy Burnham
David Miliband
Ed Miliband


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.