Pensioners smoked out by care home

Published 10 Feb 2012 09:30 26 Comments

Share this

click to enlarge
Canmore Lodge residents George Inglis and Gerald Grandison aren't happy about the smoking room being taken away.
Picture: Jim Payne

A ROSYTH woman fears her 83-year-old dad will be left out in the cold if a Dunfermline care home removes its smoking room.

Barchester Healthcare, which runs Canmore Lodge care home, plans to get rid of its residents' smoking room and replace it with a smoking shelter outside.

But Jean Clark (57) says the plans will cause problems for residents like her dad, George Inglis, who has lived at the home for the last four years.

She has concerns over the supervision and exposure to the weather if residents have to go outside to smoke and is now asking Barchester to reconsider its position.

Non-smoker Jean, of Ridley Drive, said, "Right now only my dad and another resident, Gerald Grandison, smoke.

"He's not happy about it. There's nobody more than me who'd like my dad not to smoke but he does.

"He's 83 and he's been smoking all his life.

"Gerald is not as capable as my dad and needs supervision. Somebody sits with him in the room when he smokes.

"My dad's able to walk from his room to the smoking room but how will it work if he has to go outside?

"Who's going to make sure he has his jacket on and if he gets back in?

"My dad sometimes gets up in the middle of the night for a cigarette too and Gerald is 73 and in a wheelchair."

Care homes are among the places exempted from complying with smoking legislation.

Jean recognised Barchester's right to remove the room but added, "They're asking two old men to go and stand outside in what basically is a bus shelter.

"It's so unfair on two old men who basically don't have a lot going on in their lives - the only things they have is having a smoke and now they'll have to go out as well.

"I've been told they were hoping to hold it off until April when the bad weather is over but what happens next winter?

"They said it was for health and safety reasons but how could it be - it's staff who already smoke who go into the room to supervise.

"I've been told the room is only being used by two people when it could be used by all - but they could give them a smaller room."

Jean has taken the matter to Cowdenbeath MSP Helen Eadie, who has written to Barchester chief executive Mike Parsons urging a rethink.

Mrs Eadie said, "I cannot see how sending an 83-year-old man outside from his own home to smoke is either fair or just.

"Much as I applaud moves to cut smoking I think the management have got this one wrong.

"Prisoners in Scotland get to smoke indoors and I think the current arrangements at Canmore are the right ones.

"The management should think again before forcing older folk out into the cold for a cigarette."

A spokesperson for the care home said, "Canmore Lodge can confirm that they will be closing the smoking room at the home as our residents' health and wellbeing is always our utmost priority.

"A sheltered area outside has been constructed specifically to accommodate the smokers at the home and to protect other residents and our staff.

"We respect the privacy of our residents and staff in all matters and are therefore unable to give any further comment."

Have your say. Post a comment on this article.

jollymolly
93 posts
Feb 10, 10:22
Report comment

He shouldn't be smoking in a care home in the first place, looks like he has no consideration for the other poor souls in there..

and as far as Cowdenbeath MSP Helen Eadie comments I thought she would have had more sense idiot !!!

another useless MP get rid

Recommend? Yes 85 No 26
tmcgillivary
1 post
Feb 10, 11:16
Report comment

This is their home so they should have the right to smoke indoors in their own home if they want. If you were so against smoking in the first place then the non smokers should have seeked non smoking accommodation but that's just my opinion.

Recommend? Yes 25 No 77
MichaelJMcFadden
12 posts
Feb 10, 18:20
Report comment

“A spokesman for the care home said: ‘Canmore Lodge can confirm that they will be closing the smoking room at the home as the health and wellbeing of our residents is always our utmost priority.’ ”

Absolute nonsense. I defy Canmore Lodge to provide even a single scientific study showing real harm to people from the levels of smoke that would be expected to migrate from that “smoking room” to other residents in the home. There are none. There may be “statements” from authoritative advocates and their organizations, there may be generalized “reports” offering opinions about studies, there may be studies showing that it is possible to measure microscopic traces of elements in the air, but if you actually look at the literature you will find NOTHING that offers the evidence of real harm that would justify such an action.

In reality such a ban could actually INCREASE the one arguable threat, the threat of accidental fire. With a proper smoking room containing fire safety devices (ashtrays), a minimum of flammable materials, and subject to a monitoring situation, the risk of such a fire is near zero. Remove that room and the risk of hidden smoking, without ashtrays, in rooms filled with flammable materials, and in situations where butts are likely to be quickly and improperly disposed of upon approach of authority… and you have created a situation that is BEGGING for accidental fires.

If such fires ever happen in this or in any other such housing situation where smoking has been banned I hope the people affected do everything in their power to go after the legal liability of those who imposed the bans in full knowledge of the increased risks they were creating. The bans are NOT being imposed because of concerns about the health and well-being of nonsmokers: they are being imposed to socially engineer the affected smokers into the “proper” nonsmoking behavior and as a part of a wider social engineering effort designed and pushed on many levels of society by antismoking advocates to do the same.

Michael J. McFadden,

Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

Recommend? Yes 15 No 45
jonnywindows
6 posts
Feb 10, 19:01
Report comment

the outdoor smoking room will give them fresh air to breathe

Recommend? Yes 41 No 7
kaka30
309 posts
Feb 10, 19:42
Report comment

They smoke in a designated smoking room, so there will be minimal, if any risk to non smokers.

George & Gerald have rightly or wrongly have been smoking all their lives , they find themselves in a home and now probably one of their last remaining pleasures is being taken away from them or as good as.

Care homes were given exemption from the ban for a reason, one of which i imagine is that they dont want old people wandering about outside in the cold.

Recommend? Yes 20 No 40
MichaelJMcFadden
12 posts
Feb 10, 20:00
Report comment

From: calgaryherald.com/news/stories/010217/5077666.html

Saturday 17 February 2001

Seniors in a huff about smoking

Linda Slobodian

Irene Marriott, 84, smokes with chums in a trailer they deem 'dangerous' to

their health.

Puffing seniors at Brentwood Care Centre say the facility's smoking area is

"hazardous" to their health.

At issue is a temporary 2.7- by 7.3-metre trailer set up outdoors for the

seniors to smoke in.

To get to it, Brentwood seniors -- most of them wheelchair-bound -- must

push open a heavy door, then make their way up a ramp.

A week ago, Irene Marriott, 84, wound up in a snowdrift coming down the ramp

in her wheelchair.

===

There are several more recent stories out there as well regarding seniors/patients freezing to death after going out for a smoke and having doors accidentally lock behind them etc.

Just collateral damage in the war on smokers.

- MJM

Recommend? Yes 7 No 42
midge1
53 posts
Feb 11, 00:13
Report comment

whats wrong with making care homes and other places ,install a good air condition extraction fan insite .I am a smoker of 50+ years and dont really want to stop , because when my nose clears I could be so rude to folks about their Bo or breath or the other end yuk, this country needs to look at the damage drink and drugs cause

Recommend? Yes 13 No 41
MichaelJMcFadden
12 posts
Feb 11, 02:08
Report comment

Midge, you wrote, "whats wrong with making care homes and other places ,install a good air condition extraction fan insite"

Absolutely nothing at all wrong with it, except it doesn't fit with the goal of, as Mayor Bloomberg put it, "to make smoking as difficult and expensive as possible." That's what behavioral conditioning is all about: shock the rats whenever they go over into the sunny side of the cage and eventually they'll learn to stay on the shady side.

A small extractor fan in either the smoking room or in individual rooms where people smoke or cook is all that's needed, but it doesn't serve to "nudge" people toward proper behavior. Google:

V.Gen5H

and read "The Health Arguments" (aka, "The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans") there and you'll have more of an idea of why the "fan solution" is unacceptable.

- MJM

Recommend? Yes 7 No 35
char
131 posts
Feb 11, 02:42
Report comment

Why are all the residents paying for one room to be used for 2 residents to have a fag? Are the smoking residents paying? I doubt it. Is there special rooms for the knitters?

Whilst it doesn't seem right to make them smoke outdoors it's also unfair to have a special room that non-smokers are excluded from.

Recommend? Yes 33 No 10
ShahHoorsur
31 posts
Feb 11, 09:58
Report comment

"Hello, is that the 'Press news desk? It's Mrs Clark here, my dad has been told that he'll have to pop outside to a shelter in the freash air for a fag with his mate, at their care home. Do you want to run a big story on it?

"Yes of course Mrs Clark, we'll send a reporter and photographer round straight away. Make sure your dad is sitting in 'his' chair with his (healthy looking) mate and we'll take his story. It'll make you all look really great and sensible. His photo will then appear in a half-page spread in this week's 'Press, along with our usual pro-Labour stories in the Helen Eadie section, our usual anti-SNP council stories in our Alex Rowley section, and our usual Inglis Vets section (courtesy of ex 'Press editor uncle Tom). We'll also run it on our on-line edition of course".

My oh my oh my, what is this world coming to? Just goes to show that some folk have their priorities all mixed up.

Recommend? Yes 40 No 4
SmarmyGit
314 posts
Feb 11, 11:24
Report comment

MichaelJMcFadden wrote blah, blah, blah..........

A smoker I suspect and like most other smokers whine and whinge about 'their rights to smoke' and give hee haw thought to the acrid, minging, filthy and downright disgusting habit that is cigarette smoking.........

The 'smoking' legislation was NOT brought into being to peeve off smokers, it was brought in to protect workers that had to endure environments that were thick with fag smoke, pubs, clubs, care homes, workplaces etc, but as usual he misses the point and goes off on one his his 'anti smoking' rants about the Government and their anti smoking stance.

Too right there is an anti smoking stance as it costs the UK billions in having to treat smokers when they get ill, they will get ill, thats a proven medical fact, yes some dodge the bullet and life a long life but the majority will become a burden on the tax payer. And before we get the old chestnut of smokers and their contribution in tax, Tobacco taxes do not just go to the NHS......it goes to the treasury like all the other taxes that we all pay, VAT, PAYE, duty on fuel etc.

NHS resources are finite it should be geared towards helping peoples health problems through no fault of their own or have accidents. NOT gaspers who know the health warnings surrounding smoking but who choose to ignore them because they expect the public to help them out with this idiotic idea that their fag tax is a parachute for them. In these days of finite resources - the best legacy we can learn from the tragic premature deaths of people is to NOT smoke. If you do want to smoke, fine.. thats your choice and I am all for choice. But don't expect a handout if you ignore the warnings. The tax you pay on your fags is tax - it is not a 'get out of jail free card'

The other point is, secondary smoking affects more people in an even more insidious way. Do these addicts care a jot? They just need their fix, ignoring anyone else from those around them to those who can't get treated because of them. An entire room for 2, read it 2 smokers........aye uh huh, thats a great use of resources......

Recommend? Yes 40 No 7
MichaelJMcFadden
12 posts
Feb 11, 13:46
Report comment

Heh... Funny. I had another Antismoker do the same BlahBlahBlah commenting thing just a day or two ago when I asked for some specific, substantive criticisms to that reference from the Googled "V.Gen5H" Is there a "case of the Blahs" going around among Antis lately? :>

I'd agree there's no reason to have a special room for the two smokers. There's no reason in the world why they shouldn't be able to smoke in their own rooms with a small window extractor fan.

Re Smarmy's tax and cost argument, I'd like to invite him/her to read my "Taxes, Costs, and The MSA" -- a well referenced but easy to read article/argument showing that even WITHOUT taking those taxes into account, smokers STILL subsidize nonsmokers' health care. Unless of course you don't believe what they say about smoking cutting out the later and most expensive years of such care.

Google: Pflicht McFadden Viscusi

and feel free to offer criticisms -- particularly if they amount to more than "BlahBlahBlah."

- MJM

Recommend? Yes 7 No 30
bicyclebob
159 posts
Feb 11, 15:59
Report comment

chuck em ootside,not fair on non smokers health

Recommend? Yes 28 No 10
logster
28 posts
Feb 11, 17:15
Report comment

Very interested to read the various posts and peoples concerns on the issue,however what you read very little about in local and national papers is the amount of pensioners who will die each year from hypothermia.Age concern estimated that around 60 000 pensioners died last year from hypothermia in the UK.On this issue I would like to remind readers that the Tory Lib/Dem coalition Government cut the pensioners winter fuel payments within weeks of being in power.

I dare the press to print this comment or run a story on this issue.

Recommend? Yes 27 No 3
SmarmyGit
314 posts
Feb 11, 18:28
Report comment

So MJ, your point about 'your' taxes is exactly...........?

A smoker rolls the dice and takes their chances, i pay plenty tax and expect it goes for the greater good, (schools, Hospitals, the welfare state etc) and if i ever need the NHS i 'hope' there will be sufficient resources at the disposal of the medical profession but a smoker saying they contribute 'more' so they expect to jump the queue or have a get out of jail free card is ludicrous.

The motorist contributes 38 billion into the treasury, is 36 billion spent on the roads? Nae chance, it goes into the same pot a tobacco tax, along with all other taxes.

MJM wrote: I'd agree there's no reason to have a special room for the two smokers. There's no reason in the world why they shouldn't be able to smoke in their own rooms with a small window extractor fan.

You still don't get the reason why The Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act was brought about, you still think its 'all about smokers' don't you?

I'll say it again so its clear: It is to protect workers that would have other wise had to work in an environment that could be detrimental to their health and/or be exposed to tobacco smoke, now let me see, a person smoking in a room in a care home, who goes in and cleans it, changes the bed, dusts, etc etc?

Thats right, the staff............

MJM went on to say: showing that even WITHOUT taking those taxes into account, smokers STILL subsidize nonsmokers' health care.

This has got to be the biggest laugh i've had in ages, you serious mate? You might as well say people that have cars subsidize EVERYONE else, its called a tax, you want to smoke its your choice, you want to pay over 6 quid for a pack of cancer sticks, your choice but don't bleat when the inevitable happens and expect to get preferential treatment mate, its as i said before you roll the dice you take yer chances!

Smokers are always on about 'their rights' well i have news for you mate, I and all other non smokers want the right to breath in clean air, and wait, i'll even pre-empt your other argument before you say it, something about 'car/bus/truck pollution' you want everyone going about in horses and carts?

The modern life we all enjoy in the west wouldn't have happened without the internal combustion engine, we could easily survive without fags, its that simple!

Nowhere do we see that smoking is banned, its not sociably acceptable, its stinking, its bad for your and people all around you's health, all smoker need to do if put one foot in front of the other and go outside...........

Recommend? Yes 30 No 3
MichaelJMcFadden
12 posts
Feb 11, 20:25
Report comment

Smarmy, can you show anyplace where I said smokers should "jump the queue" or "receive preferential treatment" on receiving medical care, or did you just make that up out of thin air?

You then point out that the ban is to "protect the workers." It was to "protect the workers" who have to work in a smoking area for 40 hours a week for 40 years. There is no "protection" from anything in any real sense of the word when you're talking about someone coming into a room to change a bed for ten or twenty minutes a week. Do you understand the basic principle of dosing from toxicology? Let me quote from p. 17 of the 2006 edition of the standard text, "Fundamentals of Toxicology":

"Since all chemicals can produce injury or death under some exposure conditions, there is no such thing as a "safe" chemical in the sense that it will be free of injurious effects under all circumstances of exposure. However, it is also true that there is no chemical that cannot be used safely by limiting the dose or exposure."

There are NO studies that indicate that the levels of exposure to someone cleaning a room several times a week would incur any clinical harm at all. Look around, you'll see I'm right.

I gather you didn't bother to read the reference I supplied -- or if you did, you weren't able to find anything wrong in it that you could criticize.

- MJM

Recommend? Yes 8 No 26
SmarmyGit
314 posts
Feb 12, 11:16
Report comment

More waffle from a smoker stuck in their ways.

Let me see now, Asbestos dust in KNOWN to cause plural plaques and which can in many cases go on to cause cancer, i know because my own father died of this terrible affliction, there is legislation in now that 'protects workers' from asbestos dust, you telling me that is baloney too?

Go and bang a new drum my friend because you arguments don't hold water and have PROVEN my friend, PROVEN scientific evidence to the latter, you come up with one argument FOR smoking i could come up with 10 against it, its a sound science and if you wish to bury your head in the sand regarding the pitfalls of tobacco smoke then you be my guest.......

Recommend? Yes 27 No 6
bicyclebob
159 posts
Feb 12, 19:15
Report comment

s,git,slow the turbines down,hae a fag

Recommend? Yes 4 No 16
NotHappyJan
192 posts
Feb 12, 21:00
Report comment

I think both old codgers have paid thier fair share of taxes over the tears. They both probably developed the nicotine addiction before the dangers of smoking were made known. I do not think it's reasonable to expect them to have to go outside to smoke. Give them thier extraction fan and let them smoke.

As for the others who all have an opinion, unless you have been a smoker you will never understand and some of the comments show how ignorant and uneducated you so obviously are!

Recommend? Yes 9 No 22
MichaelJMcFadden
12 posts
Feb 12, 21:05
Report comment

Git, to respond to your two main points:

1) I never said anything about asbestos. The effects of even fairly low levels of asbestos exposure are similar in magnitude to those of active smoking. The same cannot be said of low levels of secondary smoke exposure -- as you would know if you actually read the research itself.

2) It's evident you have NOT read the studies or their critiques or you wouldn't by typing "PROVEN!" in all caps. As I said, "There are NO studies that indicate that the levels of exposure to someone cleaning a room several times a week would incur any clinical harm at all. Look around, you'll see I'm right. " And, I was indeed, right. You were able to come up with nothing.

3) I also wrote, "I gather you didn't bother to read the reference I supplied -- or if you did, you weren't able to find anything wrong in it that you could criticize. " And it seems that failure has continued... not surprisingly.

- MJM

Recommend? Yes 3 No 20
SmarmyGit
314 posts
Feb 12, 21:09
Report comment

Boom, boom, boom.....still still beating that drum?

Recommend? Yes 15 No 6
SmarmyGit
314 posts
Feb 12, 21:20
Report comment

Miserable Jan wrote:As for the others who all have an opinion, unless you have been a smoker you will never understand and some of the comments show how ignorant and uneducated you so obviously are!

Ok Jan, i'll play......maybe if she knew what has went on in peoples lives and perhaps thought for an eenzy teenzy second that perhaps the 'some' of the people that are debating the subject know what they're talking about i.e. have an education up to and exceeding your Comprehensive school education, go back to trimming yer lawn with your scissors hen, you are showing your ignorance once again...........

Recommend? Yes 13 No 6
naebotherataw
13 posts
Feb 14, 11:31
Report comment

its there choice tae hae a fag and if they want one bad enough they will gan ootside fur it,

you could sit here and debate all day over the cause and effect of these two gents and there habbit, but at the end of the day they are old enough to realise that the running of the extractors the lighting and the heating of a room just for them to have a quick puff is a bit much and should perhaps just pop oot to the bus shelter for a puff.......

just saying.

Recommend? Yes 15 No 2
Catlady57
38 posts
Feb 16, 01:24
Report comment

People seem to forget the tragedy last May in a care home in Dalgety Bay which had a smoking room. What is to stop one of these gentlemen causing the same type of accident - especially the one who gets up during the night for a smoke? Why should other residents and staff have their lives put at risk because the relatives of these men think they have the right to smoke indoors, and pollute the atmosphere? If Ms Clark is so determined that her father be allowed to smoke, she should have him living with her.

http://www.eastlothiancourier.com/news/roundup/articles/2011/02/17/410358-oap-dies-in-horror-fire-/

Recommend? Yes 9 No 0
MrsJBarrowman
10 posts
Feb 17, 01:18
Report comment

Isn't he allowed to smoke in the comfort of his own room? Many care homes I've visited afford the service user the independence to use and have their own home within the larger unit. That means they can choose to do what they wish in the confines of that room.

If however it's deemed too much of a risk for the gentleman in question to smoke independantly in his room then why should anyone (staff/volunteers) be subjected to having to attend to him whilst he smokes? Yes, he probably started smoking when the dangers of smoking were little know but now we do know what those dangers are why should ANYONE be put at risk from this gentleman's habit - it's his choice and if he's willing to risk it then fine (as long as he's capable of doing so alone)? Perhaps Mr "I'm all for smoking" could pop down on a regular basis and accompany said gentleman when he pops out for a puff?

In care units/assisted living the staff are currently pushed to the limits and whilst I'm sure some of them wouldn't actually mind going out for a fag with Mr Inglis, this would mean taking away from other service users and why should that occur simply because one person has been unable to kick a habit? What next? Should care staff/support workers be encouraged to hold the needle whilst heroin addicts inject or should they offer to pour alcoholics a large measure...OR should they get on with the job in hand which is to support, care for and assist in making life comfortable for the older people in their care?

As another poster has pointed out we need to learn lessons from the Dalgety Bay tragedy of last year.

Recommend? Yes 5 No 2
MichaelJMcFadden
12 posts
Feb 23, 06:07
Report comment

Catlady and Mrs. Barrowman: If you read the news articles about that fire, you will find that there were some very strange aspects to it. Mr. Charles Clark died in a fire at Henderson House in Dalgety Bay and was burned over 100% of his body while sitting alone in the room and yet there was virtually no fire damage anywhere else in the room.

I contacted the authorities to try to find out more but they are giving out no further information despite being prompt and cordial in their responses. They said they "can not provide any more information, even an opinion which may jeopardise a trial." and "The incident at the Care Home is still under investigation by Fife Constabulary in partnership with the Health and Safety Executive and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. No information will be released untill the issue has been concluded at court. To release information prior to any proceedings may jepordise the case and is not in the public interest."

It may simply be an ordinary case of a fire caused by smoking, but for such a case to be kept under tight investigatory wraps for over a year seems somewhat unusual. In any event, it was probably far better that it occurred in a public room where some thought had probably been given to minimizing fire danger than in a private room where someone might try to "sneak a quick fag" without even a proper, but incriminatory, ashtray.

- MJM

Recommend? Yes 1 No 3

Return to the main index, get more from this section or browse our News archives.

Dunfermline Press Poll

Do you agree with plans to pay for parking on your mobile phone?

Follow @dunfermlinep