scholarly journals 104 House Rules and Clean Kids: The down-low on Tobacco

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. e43-e43
Author(s):  
Caseng Zhang ◽  
Alex Hicks ◽  
Alvaro Osornio-Vargas ◽  
Lesley Brennan ◽  
Matt Hicks ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Despite multiple published guidelines outlining the potential health risks caused by tobacco smoke, young children continue to be exposed to the detrimental effects of household smoking. Environmental factors also have the potential to influence levels of tobacco exposure in children. Many factors such as comfort can influence the decisions of smoking parents to smoke indoors, increasing potential harm for children. Understanding the correlation between various locations within the household and tobacco exposure is helpful in informing a harm reduction strategy for smokers. This project compared the location of reported tobacco use to detection of the nicotine byproduct cotinine in children’s urine samples. Objectives To determine the impact of smoking location on unintentional tobacco exposure in children. Design/Methods This prospective cross-sectional study focused on children under age ten, since 13% of Canadian children in grades 6 and up have tried a cigarette at least once. Of 286 parents approached during a pediatrician visit, 231 agreed to complete an exposure questionnaire and 132 children were able to provide a urine sample during the visit. A standard ELISA assay was used to measure urine cotinine. Results About half of the 31% of households that reported smoking had an indoor smoking ban. Some indoor smokers isolated their activity to the garage (56%). Of the 84 children with detectable urine cotinine, 62 lived in homes that reported smoking. This suggests that some children were exposed to tobacco smoke through other sources or the underestimation of potential tobacco exposure. Fifteen percent of children from smoking homes had cotinine levels similar to nonsmoking homes. Children of indoor smokers were more likely to have detectable cotinine than those of outdoor smokers. Conclusion Roughly 50% of smokers with children have an indoor smoking ban as a harm reduction strategy. In our study, children of smokers with an indoor smoking ban were less likely to have detectable urine cotinine. Although not smoking is the best strategy, limiting smoking to outside is an optimal harm mitigation strategy. For families with indoor smokers, encouraging them to isolate smoking to a single space like the garage may decrease unintentional pediatric exposure.

Contraception ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 87
Author(s):  
Alyson Hyman ◽  
Kelly Blanchard ◽  
Francine Coeytaux ◽  
Daniel Grossman ◽  
Alexandra Teixeira

2006 ◽  
Vol 96 (11) ◽  
pp. 1934-1939 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Savitz ◽  
Roger E. Meyer ◽  
Jason M. Tanzer ◽  
Sidney S. Mirvish ◽  
Freddi Lewin

2021 ◽  
pp. 266-275
Author(s):  
Kaveri Prakash

Given that the current strategies focusing on deterrence and punishment are increasingly ineffective worldwide, is there a radically different approach to ensuring a level playing field? This essay explores the growing discourse on alternate approaches to controlling the use of performance enhancing substances (PES) in sports and reflects on the fact that social and cultural behaviour patterns, plus a lack of ethics in the practice of medicine are the issues that need to be tackled urgently in this eagerness to ensure a level playing field in sports. Kaveri Prakash cautiously argues for adopting a relatively new approach, under wide discussion, centring on a harm reduction strategy, that would allow performance enhancing substances to be administered under supervision. However, this will only be successful if regulatory and ethical frameworks in related areas are strengthened and current practices are systematically reviewed and either discarded or reformed. Moreover, India needs to pay serious attention to its sporting population, on and off the field, in order to gauge its response to regulation.


Author(s):  
Rebecca Thomas ◽  
Lisa S Parker ◽  
Saul Shiffman

Abstract Much evidence suggests e-cigarettes are substantially less harmful than combustible cigarettes. Assuming this is true, we analyze the ethical case for a policy of e-cigarette availability (ECA) as a tobacco harm reduction strategy. ECA involves making e-cigarettes available to allow smokers to switch to them, and informing smokers of the lower risks of e-cigarettes vis-à-vis smoking. After suggesting that utilitarian/consequentialist considerations do not provide an adequate ethical analysis, we analyze ECA using two other ethical frameworks. First, ECA is supported by a public health ethics framework. ECA is a population-level intervention consistent with respecting individual autonomy by using the least restrictive means to accomplish public health goals, and it supports equity and justice. Second, ECA is supported by four principles that form a biomedical ethics framework. By reducing smokers’ health risks and not harming them, ECA fulfills principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. Because ECA allows smokers to make informed health decisions for themselves, it fulfills the principle requiring respect for persons and their autonomy. Here, we consider whether nicotine addiction and thus ECA undermine autonomy, and also discuss the ethical warrant for special protections for youth. Finally, ECA can also advance justice by providing a harm reduction alternative for disadvantaged groups that disproportionately bear the devastating consequences of smoking. Policies of differential taxation of cigarettes and e-cigarettes can facilitate adoption of less harmful alternatives by those economically disadvantaged. We conclude that public health and biomedical ethics frameworks are mutually reinforcing and supportive of ECA as a tobacco harm reduction strategy. Implications Making e-cigarettes and information about them available is supported as ethical from multiple ethical perspectives.


AIDS ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (18) ◽  
pp. 2497-2506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Cassels ◽  
Timothy W Menza ◽  
Steven M Goodreau ◽  
Matthew R Golden

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document