Smoking ban is cruel, says doctor
However, I do not think that a blanket ban is reasonable or justified. It stigmatises at least one-quarter to one-third of the population and makes their everyday lives difficult and miserable.
If this is the intention, so that people will give up smoking, I say that cruelty is never justified. And this is cruel.
The arguments in relation to the causation of disease except in first-hand inhalation are mostly unproven and often spurious. This means that the proposed legislation is based on spurious and exaggerated arguments and statistics. This is immoral.
I have seen visitors, patients and some staff stand outside hospitals to have a smoke. If a smoker has a broken leg and has to trod a long distance to hospital, or a person is visiting a sick or dying relative, the ban is cruel.
Instead of introducing a blanket ban, while arguing that it is to protect the health of staff many of whom smoke anyway the minister should work in a kind and equal manner in the interests of all.
People under stress visiting hospitals and other such institutions do not deserve to be treated in such a cruel manner. Patients in psychiatric hospitals will also be affected. This is cruel. In prisons, removing the right to smoke, would be akin to torture. This is very worrying.
At airports, if passengers are held up, there will be chaos with people going back out to smoke and checking in as late as possible.
Doctors are expected to work in a way that is not cruel and to treat all people with absolute equality. The Government should also act in this way.
In Ireland people have lived in a certain way for many generations. With one fell swoop the minister is attempting to change this. This is cruel and degrading treatment.
It is unfair to affect smokers in almost every building in the whole country. It seems obvious that the minister has a particular dislike of smoking and/or smokers. I think that such bias is a most unfortunate reason to force the introduction of this ban. It is unreasonable and unsound to bring into Ireland dubious standards from the USA. The minister has effectively done this because California and New York are quoted constantly. Just like Ireland, the track record of the USA in relation to human rights is not glorious. This is another example of human rights abuse.
If the minister was fair and reasonable he would achieve a compromise instead of causing division, anger, upset and cruelty.
I have not seen any evidence that smokers have been officially asked what they want and there certainly has been no consultation process. This is fundamentally undemocratic.
There are already many restrictions on smoking, and these should suffice. However, if they don't, then measures should be introduced that make allowances for everyone.
The simple imposition of ill-considered and oppressive measures which infringe on people's fundamental freedoms is not acceptable, especially for vulnerable people.
The minister has a responsibility to all of the citizens of the country, smokers and non-smokers, in good and in bad times, in health and in illness.
He is not doing the job because he is not treating all citizens equally and is interfering with the everyday lives of a large proportion of the population without making provision for them.
There are fundamental wrongs, deficiencies and human rights abuses in the health service, and it is these that should be addressed because they are the responsibility of the Government. In summary, this ban is draconian, undemocratic, unfair, unequal and cruel.
Dr Brendan O'Reilly,
6, Clos Brenin,
Brynsadler,
Rhondda Cynon Taff,
Wales CF72 9GA.
