Smoking: bad for your health and your bank account.

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/11/30/off_the_job_smoker_sues_over_firing/?page=2

In November of last year The Scotts Co. was involved in a controversial firing of one of its employees based on the fact that he was a smoker. Scott Rodrigues’ employment with the company was terminated after they found extremely high levels of nicotine in his urine during a drug test. The Scott Co. requires its employees be non-smokers for their tenure with the firm. This is an attempt to keep health insurance costs low. Since they purchase the policy privately, the lawn care company is offered incentives for keeping its workers healthy.

This brings about an interesting ethical question, is the company justified in making this requirement? Should people be forced to give up their autonomy in order to ensure employment? In the end the company was acting lawful in firing Rodrigues, but is it ethical for our employer to determine what we do with our body? One could argue that Scott Co. was simply acting beneficently, in the best interest of their employees by enacting the policy. Its workers would generally benefit from their improved health after they stopped smoking, but does this outweigh the fact that they are fired if they cannot comply? Scott is essentially acting in a maleficent manor by not hiring smokers. The sector of the population they are discriminating against could be some of their best workers. It certainly is maleficent to fire someone because they engaging in a common practice outside of work.

The sticky part of this issue is who is justified here. Both parties are acting legally. Rodrigues is partaking in a legal activity, which may be endangering his health, but under his own self-determination. The Scott Co. is acting under complete legality in forcing its employees to sign a document promising not to smoke during their employment. The question that I find interesting is where does this stop? Can you be discriminated against because you have diabetes, or if you develop diabetes? This is a very expensive condition, which could be caused by individual actions, and most definitely would raise health insurance costs. Is this the beginning of the end for workers autonomy?