Monday, 30 July 2012

Persuading families not to smoke at home: a how-to guide from the UK National Smoking Cessation Conference

From Laura Jones at the University of Nottingham comes this review of research on initiatives to discourage people from smoking in the home, presented in an audio clip and slide show.

The abstract page contains (as standard) a declaration of no interest, even though it was funded from the UK Centre for Tobacco Control, some of whose staff have clear interests in the nicotine replacement therapy market.

Personally I found the soundtrack quite difficult to listen to, especially when Dr Jones says that inadequate rules about where smoking is allowed in the household (that is, rules that don't amount to a complete ban) might as well not be in place at all. I find it difficult to accept that level of what is politely called 'intervention' where I live (in fact I need not worry on that score as I neither smoke nor have children).

I can see tobacco control experts being content with an absence of legislation in this area: all the more reason to undertake further research into the most effective ways to persuade people not to expose their children to 'second-hand' smoke. But at what point (to paraphrase the title of Chris Snowdon's blog) will the velvet glove become the iron fist?

And will the children whose health is of such concern today find themselves at the receiving end of an iron fist in the future?

2 comments:

Bill Gibson said...

Dr Laura Jones, University of Nottingham
Laura has obtained funding from the National Institute for Health Research as part of the programme grant to study reducing children's environmental tobacco smoke exposure in the home. Funding will last from March 2010 - February 2015.

Junican said...

I have just listened to the Doctor. I managed to last most of the way through before I could stand it no longer.

This lady is a DOCTOR of something or other? How come? She exists in a bubble of self-delusion!

Take SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). 'Studies have shown' an elevated risk of SIDS in the homes of parents who smoke (note my phraseology - in the homes of. But the number of SIDS deaths is minuscule. 700,000 births occur each year in Eng and Wales. Only about 150 SIDS deaths occur. At a popular rate of 20% smokers (doubled if both parents smoke), if smoking by parents 'caused' SIDS deaths, then there ought to be 140,000 SIDS deaths. Why are there not!!!

Her delusion is palpable in almost every word she says. People are 'disadvantaged' if they are in the lower income groups. She says nothing about love and affection. How on earth do these people become 'DOCTORS'? Is there not supposed to be some sort of scientific objectivity in their work?

Really weird!