Contentious Issue of Smoking versus Non-Smoking case : Ethics assignment - Essay Example

Early residents equated the idea of a place like home as having a complete freedom to do whatever one wants such as smoking in the dining room, the library, the game room, lobby and the hallways. However, as more people moved in, these privileges were gradually taken away such that smoking is now essentially restricted inside ones own apartment units only or out in the open outdoors preferably far from anybody who does not want to smell a whiff of the smoke. Increased health awareness on the dangers of second-hand smoke made all those changes necessary.

Additionally, older people are very susceptible to respiratory ailments and other diseases like cataracts and ulcers due to smoke (Alters & Schiff, 2010:219). However, non-smoking residents want smoking banned entirely on the whole property, citing their need and right for clean fresh air which was one primary reason they had bought private units inside this community. Smokers, on the other hand, assert their right to smoke and even point out they have to remove themselves to faraway areas just to be able to smoke.

The facility itself does not have enough resources to have areas separated for smoking. The ethical issues in this case involved balancing the right of smokers with that of the non-smokers as well as who will be given priority in the use of some areas within the place. In the early days of the residential community, the residents were not so concerned with effects of smoking. Presumably, many residents bought private units inside this community because of the allure or promise of all the comforts of a real home.

Early residents took this to mean they can practically do anything they want whenever and wherever they want and it includes smoking in some common areas like the dining area, library, game room, etc. Since this is a common residential complex, then all residents have the equal right to access all common areas