"Julianne" > wrote in message news:<XlESb.4014$gl2.1724@lakeread05>...
>
> It seems to me that if a jazz musician wanted to work, he or she would take
> into consideration the risks inherent with the job. When the risks are
> greater than the benefits, it is time to move on. In the 80's, a lot of
> nurses moved on because they were not comfortable with the risk of HIV.
> Canadian nurses, not comfortable with SARS quit their jobs.
>
> There is no law that says those who employ entertainers have to ensure that
> jazz musicians have a smoke free environment. If you don't want to assume
> the risk, find another line of work.
>
> j

There is a law that (indirectly) prohibits you from tieing an aids
infected hyperdermic needle (or a chainsaw) to a stick and swinging it
around in a crowded room. If I'm a computer programmer and I work
somewhere where people swing chainsaws around for their own enjoyment,
at my risk, should I just consider that an occupational hazard and
change careers? I don't see how the job of writing computer programs
should require that I learn to dodge chainsaws, and I also don't see
how plying the trumpet should require musicians to risk lung cancer.

Your example falls apart because the dangers of your job are
unavoidable. It's not like the hospital makes a policy that you're
job *should* be dangerous. If anything, they do their best to reduce
your danger as much as reasonably possible. No one in the medical
field stands up and says "No, I think nurses should be MORE at risk,
not less." Smoking in public places is avoidable. So is swinging
hyperdermic needles around. There's law agains one, why not the
other.