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.

 

Nanny-Staters Want Neck Tie Ban

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Link


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.


If it is such an important issue then the doctors should make the choice for themselves. Why should government step in and tell doctors what they can or cannot wear? Banning neckties is definitely a step way too far. Maybe they should ban baggy clothing because they could fall off. Maybe they should briefs because they lower sperm count. Maybe they should ban short skirts because it encourages rapists. See where I am going with this?




posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Well I live in NY and can tell you they love their control around here
It is funny in how many ways NY tells people what they should or should not do. The masses are not entitled to think for themselves. The fiefdom of NYC is the biggest example of the nanny state in action.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I work on a farm, and we have a contract with a major supermarket chain, so we have to abide by their rules to wear hair nets, gloves, no jewelery etc, all because of health and safety standards. I don't see how it is any different. Would doctors wash their ties after each use? Probably not, think of all the germs that would linger in there.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
But...but then they wouldn't look all doctor-y and stuff!




posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
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 stuff drives me batty! We live in a society where intent is more important that actual results and facts. The public read a headline and go along with it, because "it sounds nice."

We had laws being put into effect last year making it illegal to smoke in a car with kids. Now, any half wit would know this isn't a good idea. But, if you are going to make laws on stupidity, you could start writing till your hands fell off.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
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?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   

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?


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.

As an aside, being in a multicultural country where politicians routinely play the race card and use my money to buy off minority votes, I am not necessarily against laws banning the niqabs. If you want to live in Canada, you should have to abide by the laws and leave what are derogatory sexist practices back where you came from.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


they should ban life, because life is the leading cause of death ha ha ha



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   

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?

Not picking on you or the OP in particular because this kind of thing is all over the board and all over the web, But do you realize how much more powerful a message this would be if your thread title were to read...

Law-Crazy Government Wants Neck Tie Ban

How many more people would sit up and take notice and make connections and retain continuity and see what's happening instead of being trapped in this partisan crap....

Seriously, this kind of thing dilutes both the message and the seriousness of what is happening and is effectively paralyzing we the people—as intended.

STOP helping them divide us!


edit on 5/5/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
All same source


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.”


Addresses escalating problem of infection in NY. Goes to Commissioner of Health to establish hygienic dress codes. Hygienic dress code has seen success in preventing infection. Could save money and prevent lawsuits. Ok, I'll go along with that.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   

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?


Perhaps Liberalism is not the perfect word. I would agree with you, Conservatives on the far right (and Christian Conservatives in the US) seem to want everyone to live and follow their laws and rules. Although, they are more like Islamic Muslims than Nanny Stater's who seem to think that the State needs to look after the little people. There is a slight difference in the approach of the two sides.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   

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.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   

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?


IMO "nanny state" defines a government and/or its supporters who believe the purpose of government is to protect citizens from any and all potentially "bad things" - like a mother or a nanny would a child. All the citizens need to do and be concerned with is sending all their money to the government to pay for this "protection".

Read the book Brave New World by Huxley for background.

Truth is you can't control EVERYTHING with laws and rules.

A better truth is you shouldn't even try to do that.

There. I never mentioned liberals or conservatives (well, until now that is).



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 

That was kinda my point. Thanks.


reply to post by mbkennel
 

See? Needless bickering.
edit on 5/5/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

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.


The study also concluded that "lose fitting clothing" was a problem along with ties. Maybe we should make all doctors wear spandex--which would be very scary if my Doctor followed suit! The study may have merit, and doctors should pay attention, but, I'm not so big on banning ties outright. Doctors should be aware of their surroundings and be cautious with what they where, and how often the sterilize their environment.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

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.


So true.

I'm watching the legislature in my state and it's like the academic "publish or perish" rule is in effect. They have to keep proposing new laws no matter how dumb or unnecessary to basically justify their existence. And so they go after the trivial, easy laws rather than tackling anything really necessary and/or controversial.




posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
He will be missed



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dashen
It is actually a serious problem

Half of doctors' neckties contained dangerous bacteria, new study


How long have doctors been wearing neckties? At least a week or two, I believe. So why is it a problem now? The 6 most dangerous words for liberty: there ought to be a law.

/TOA



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join