It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Some New York lawmakers are proposing a law that would prohibit doctors from wearing neckties while working.
The proposal quotes a study that shows bacteria may build-up on neckties and lead to infection.
The Independent Democratic Conference in the state Senate is calling for the legislation to readdress what they consider a fashion emergency.
Originally posted by ~Lucidity
We don't need a freaking law for this. Let the AMA and the doctors themselves handle it, and also get out the word so the germ freaks add this to their list of criteria when choosing a doc.
Oh a side note, please define nanny-stater for me? Would that be the same group that wants to ban niqabs?
Originally posted by Ultraman2011
Nanny state: to me they are the people that ban play grounds, kids from playing tag, arrest kindergarden kids for bringing a steak knife to cut a sandwich....people lacking common sense in life.
The IDC has introduced legislation that will help establish a hygienic dress code for medical professionals. Under the legislation, a 25-member advisory council made up of experts appointed by the Commissioner of Health will be charged with developing the codes. Areas of examination would include:
* Barring the wearing of neck ties for doctors and hospital workers in a clinical setting;
* Adopting a “bare below the elbow” policy: wearing short-sleeve shirts, cleaning identification badges, avoiding wearing wrist watches and jewelry, and abandoning long white coats;
* Providing education to patients and practitioners about how the new hygienic policy helps reduce cross-infection;
* Requiring hospitals to provide an adequate supply of scrubs to medical staff to ensure frequent change; * Ban the wearing of uniforms outside of the hospital, or other health care setting.
Similar dress codes were implemented in other parts of the country with much success. For instance, a health center in St. Louis saw a 50 percent drop in reduction in infections when a hygienic dress code was provided. Also, a hospital in Indiana - which adopted a hygienic dress code upon opening two years ago - has no reported instances of hospital-acquired infections.
New York currently has the highest medical malpractice insurance costs in the nation. Between 1999 and 2004, the cumulative premium increase was 147 percent, a yearly average yearly increase of 27 percent. Those costs, which continue to rise, is the result of jury awards being paid out to preventable medical mistakes, a category that includes hospital-borne infections. “This is a very simple equation,” said Senator Diane Savino, (D-Staten Island/ Brooklyn). “Adopting a hygienic dress code for medical professionals means less infections, less lawsuits, lower medical malpractice premiums and more lives saved.”
Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Originally posted by Ultraman2011
Nanny state: to me they are the people that ban play grounds, kids from playing tag, arrest kindergarden kids for bringing a steak knife to cut a sandwich....people lacking common sense in life.
Always "liberals" in your view? I'm asking because you in another post mentioned liberalism and because I happen to believe there just might be nannyism on both sides. Would you agree?
Originally posted by Ultraman2011
This is yet another example of Nanny State Liberalism run amok. The true motivation behind these types of laws is to make the person who proposed it feel good about themselves and, if they are a politician, to pretend they did something useful, because they could not think of anything useful to suggest.
Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Originally posted by Ultraman2011
Nanny state: to me they are the people that ban play grounds, kids from playing tag, arrest kindergarden kids for bringing a steak knife to cut a sandwich....people lacking common sense in life.
Always "liberals" in your view? I'm asking because you in another post mentioned liberalism and because I happen to believe there just might be nannyism on both sides. Would you agree?
Originally posted by mbkennel
Originally posted by Ultraman2011
This is yet another example of Nanny State Liberalism run amok. The true motivation behind these types of laws is to make the person who proposed it feel good about themselves and, if they are a politician, to pretend they did something useful, because they could not think of anything useful to suggest.
This is an example Fundamnentalist Libertarian Insanity run amok.
The motivation behind these laws is to reduce infections as demonstrated with study of known science.
Ever since the correct understanding of the germ theory of disease, infectious control has been a legitimate interest of the state.
Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Ultraman2011
Agreed. I added a bit to my post explaining why I think this is damaging. Guess we were typing at the same time.
They do think we're idiots when they try to make laws like this. And all the while, while they're wasting time on this kind of thing, other things of far higher priority go by the wayside and our country argues over trivial stuff as it crumbles.
Originally posted by dashen
It is actually a serious problem
Half of doctors' neckties contained dangerous bacteria, new study