Bioethics

Patients are a vulnerable population⁷⁹.

They trust health professionals with their health, well being and their lives.

They deserve to know all their options.

Advocate for utilization of harm reduction

From first year of post-secondary education, health professionals are trained to trust “credible sources” such as health-related nonprofits, health authorities, regulatory bodies and internal information sources in the work place. Health professionals trust that the information that comes from credible sources are unbiased, accurate, and ethical⁷⁹.

However, in reference to the Syphilis Study at Tuskegee, health professionals are required to think critically and challenge unethical practices⁸⁰. This study, from 1932 to 1972, recorded the untreated effects of syphilis in 399 males against a control of 201 uninfected men. Subjects were poor and illiterate. They were not informed that they had syphilis, nor were they offered penicillin when it was found to be an effective treatment in 1945. In 1969 the Centers for Disease Control backed by the American Medical Association and the National Medical Association refused to inform the subjects of their infection nor offer treatment despite concerns voiced by citizens. Public outcry ended the study in 1972⁸⁰. Over 40 years, multiple doctors, nurses and other health professionals violated informed decision making and promoted harm.

Health professionals have a responsibility to resist blindly following authority, review the evidence and advocate for harm reduction to promote improved health outcomes⁷⁹.

Tobacco harm reduction

Compassionate and just approach

Health professionals’ primary bioethic is nonmaleficence; to do no harm. Miscommunication about tobacco harm reduction has compromised health professionals’ ability to promote autonomy in their smoking patients, specifically facilitating informed decision making⁸¹. Ensure beneficence by reviewing the credible evidence.

Basic vaping information

Misinformation

Supports continued profits

Public Health England estimates vaping helps at least 18,000 and as high as 57,000 smokers quit each year in the UK⁸². Not only have pharmaceutical smoking cessation prescriptions dropped more than 50% since vaping has been introduced but current vapers⁸³, and subsequently former smokers, are reporting a decreasing need for their medications for managing their smoking-related diseases⁸⁴.

Youth vaping epidemic

What about youth smoking?

Why are all the credible sources omitting significant data such as youth smoking rates are plummetting^85,86; vaping is a fraction the harm of smoking⁸⁷; nicotine is less addictive than cigarette smoke⁸⁴; and smokers are quitting using tobacco harm reduction⁸⁸? The hysteria over youth experimenting with vaping disregards the reduction in youth smoking uptake. One must look at the potential reduction in harm if youth are choosing to experiment with vaping instead of smoking due to the significant reduction in health destroying toxins and reduction in addiction potential⁸⁹.

Long term effects

We know the LT effects of smoking

Unlike with cigarettes, vaping has been developed in an age when science has studied and catalogued thousands of substances and how they effect human health⁹⁰. Eliquid and vapour have been thoroughly analyzed and the results consistently indicate that vaping is a very small fraction of the harm compared to smoking⁸⁷.

Bad science

False claims

Omitting significant data is coupled with false claims such as youth smoking rates are inclining⁹¹ and vaping causes heart attacks⁹². These questionable researchers have the audience of the most powerful tobacco control bureaucrats in Canada⁹³. It’s time the health community review the evidence and advocate for the effective utilization of vaping before these bureaucrats enact oppressive regulations which will destroy the industry that supplies Canadians with tobacco harm reduction⁹⁴.

Media

Click bait headlines

Mainstream media has been instrumental at spreading false narratives. Is the free press particularly Canada’s publicly funded CBC not responsible to report the facts so Canadians can make informed decisions on issues of public health⁹⁵? One must consider that media is significantly funded by the pharmaceutical industry⁹⁶.

Credible sources

Are they trustworthy?

Health-related nonprofits⁹⁷, health authorities, regulatory bodies and universal health care agencies have close and often financial relationships with industry that profit from ill-health such as the pharmaceutical, medical supply, and medical equipment industries. These industries fund a large portion of our scientific research, medical schools⁹⁸, tobacco control conferences⁹⁹ and so on.

Health-related nonprofits

Revenue contingent on disease

Health professionals trust these agencies as credible sources of information because they have been trained to. It’s time to start questioning sources of information that revenue comes as a result of diseases. These agencies do not have answer to the bioethics of professional codes of ethics that guide the practice of health professionals.

Regulatory bodies

On the bandwagon

Professional regulatory bodies make professional conduct and responsibilities for their members. But do these ethics apply to the agencies as well? The Canadian Nurses Association has been a leader in harm reduction for illicit drug users since 2007¹⁰⁰.

Front line workers

The final fail safe

When the system fails, it’s the front line workers that must advocate for appropriate application of science to improve population health outcomes. These health professionals witness the suffering caused from smoking everyday. Will they review the evidence, challenge the opinion of majority and do the right thing?

What is VAEP?

79. Canadian Nurses Association. (2017). Code of ethics for registered nurses.

80. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee.

81. Huang. J. et al. (2019). Changing perceptions of harm of e-cigarette vs cigarette use among adults in 2 US National surveys from 2012 to 2017.

82. Public Health England. (2018). Key questions and findings from our e-cigarette evidence update

83. NHS Digital. (2019). Statistics on smoking, England – 2019.

84. Farsalinos, K. E., Romagna, G., Tsiapras, D., Kyrzopoulos, S., & Voudris, V. (2014). Characteristics, perceived side effects and benefits of electronic cigarette use: A worldwide survey of more than 19,000 consumers.

85. Government of Canada. (2015). Canadian Student Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey.

86. Government of Canada. (2019). Canadian Student Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey.

87. Abrams, D. B., Glasser, A. M., Pearson, J. L., Villanti, A. C., Collins, L. K., & Niaura, R. S. (2018). Harm Minimization and Tobacco Control: Reframing Societal Views of Nicotine Use to Rapidly Save Lives. Annual Review of Public Health.

88. Farsalinos KE, Barbouni A. Association between electronic cigarette use and smoking cessation in the European Union in 2017: analysis of a representative sample of 13 057 Europeans from 28 countries.

89. A Consensus Study Report of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. (2018). Public Health Consequences of E-cigarettes. Page 33.

90. Canadian Centre for Health and Safety. (2020). Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS).

91. Hammond, D. et al. (2019). Prevalence of vaping and smoking among adolescents in Canada, England, and the United States: repeat national cross sectional surveys.

92. Journal of the American Heart Association. (2020). Retraction to: Electronic Cigarette Use and Myocardial Infarction Among Adults in the US Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health.

93. University of Ottawa Heart Institute. (2020). Top Smoking Cessation Authorities Gather at Ottawa Conference – Day 1. Retreived Feb. 19, 2020 from https://www.ottawaheart.ca/media-release/top-smoking-cessation-authorities-gather-ottawa-conference-day-1.

94. Public Health Agency of Canada (2020). Statement from the Council of Chief Medical Officers of Health on Nicotine Vaping in Canada.\

95. Canadian Broadcast Corporation. (2017). Code of Conduct: Working together: Our values, ethical principles and expected behaviour. Retrieved Feb. 19, 2020 from https://site-cbc.radio-canada.ca/documents/values-ethics/values-ethics/code-conduct-en.pdf

96. Kantar US Insights. (2017). Retrieved Feb 19, 2020 from https://us.kantar.com/business/health/2017/drug-advertising-booms/

97. Women and Health Protection (WHP). (2005). Marching to Different Drummers: Health Advocacy Groups in Canada and Funding from the Pharmaceutical Industry. Retrieved Faeb. 19, 2020 from http://www.whp-apsf.ca/pdf/corpFunding.pdf

98. Canadian Medical Association Journal. (2013). Pharma influence widespread at medical schools: study. Retrieved Fab. 19, 2020 from https://www.cmaj.ca/content/185/13/1121

99. 12th Annual Ottawa Conference State of the Art Clinical Approaches to Smoking Cessation. (2020). Conference program. Page 17. Retrieved Feb. 19, 2020 from https://ottawamodel.ottawaheart.ca/sites/default/files/2020_program_-_web.pdf

100. Canadian Nurses Association. (2020). Harm reduction. Retrieved Feb. 19, 2020 from https://www.cna-aiic.ca/en/policy-advocacy/harm-reduction.