The management response here has to be a classic in health and safety. First of all, I didn't know that a car could be customer. Second, apparently if they aren't patients yet we don't need to care about their health, or the employees health. Maybe what is needed here is a dose of what is the right thing to do as opposed to what is the least we can do.

Good afternoon colleagues,

I concur with Dr Hyman's statement that hospitals could use a "dose of what is the right thing to do". Unfortunately, that's not the case with respect to employees in many hospitals, and in many states, who are (or have been) oncology patients. Example: a 20-year employee who was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer 6 months ago (and who, during her first round of chemotherapy, vomited almost hourly and lost 30 pounds) had a much better clinical course in her second round of chemo after her oncologist recommended she try marijuana as adjunctive therapy. No vomiting, no weight loss.

So far so good? Now she wants to return to her position as a cashier in the gift shop. It's been five weeks since she last used marijuana. Is firing her "the right thing to do"? She's clearly not currently impaired by, or under the influence of, any illegal drug. How does firing a 20-year employee demonstrate that we in any way "care about her health"?

Or let's say she wasn't an employee, but she needs a job to help pay her medical bills. Same scenario -- five weeks since her last use of marijuana. Is shutting her out of the applicant pool "the right thing to do"?

Just some food for thought ...

Respectfully,

Joe Fanucchi