My apologies, Dr. Malone...
My apologies, Dr. Malone...
Edit just to add: Even for a person who has a doctorate, it is not improper to call them Ms. or Mr. or Mrs. etc.
Last edited by TTK; 02-04-2013 at 03:56 PM.
| UCSF School of Nursing
There is a long history of women in science being referred to without their titles while men frequently get their titles included. I think we need to be particularly careful in this regard.
Still some one with a PHD in basket weaving can use the title DR.
So it never hurts to check.
I have seen my share of health care story's, by folks using the title DR. Who were not MDs or any where related to heath care.
I feel a bout of Civil disobedience coming on
Well, Ruth E. Malone, RN, PhD, FAAN is the most appropriate in my opinion.
To quote Jesse Kline, writer for the National Post, "Anti-tobacco advocates need to get over their deep-seated antipathy toward smokers."
As for the demonization practice, it just may be a dud when it comes to helping smokers.
Study Shows that Genetics Play an Important Role in Anti-Tobacco Policies | SciTech DailySmoking dropped sharply after the Surgeon General’s landmark report on the dangers of tobacco was published in 1964, but rates have plateaued during the past two decades despite increasingly stringent measures to persuade people to quit. The study found biological evidence that may help explain why some people respond to anti-smoking inducements, such as higher taxes and the expansion of clean-air laws, and why others do not.
“We found that for people who are genetically predisposed to tobacco addiction, higher cigarette taxes were not enough to dissuade them from smoking,” said lead researcher Jason M. Fletcher, associate professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Yale School of Public Health.
The “gene-policy interaction” study, the first of its kind, found that variations in the nicotine receptor were linked to the influence of higher taxes on multiple measures of tobacco use. Individuals with a specific genetic variant decreased their tobacco use by nearly 30 percent when facing high tobacco taxes, while individuals with an alternative genetic variant had no response.
“This study is an important first step in considering how to further reduce adult smoking rates,” said Fletcher. “We need to understand why existing policies do not work for everyone so that we can develop more effective approaches.”
The gap in the effectiveness of tobacco-control policies remains poorly understood. The findings suggest that strategies that do not rely on financial or social consequences may be needed to persuade a still-significant segment of the population to quit, notes Fletcher.
Oh, but I am forgetting. It isn't about saving the lives of smokers.
---- Support CASAA -http://www.casaa.org/Donate_LKWE.html ---
To quote Dr. Carl Phillips about this topic:
Folks, PLEASE start reevaluating your long-held beliefs about "Big Tobacco." Think about it - everything you still think of as "known facts" was told to us by the same ANTZ who are now lying about e-cigarettes and low-risk smokeless tobacco products! Don't you think that at least makes those "known facts" worthy of review and doubt? Do you think they just lie about e-cigarettes (or just need to be "convinced") and everything they told us about Big Tobacco was not warped, twisted or downright lies but absolute truth? They really just learned how to lie so skillfully since e-cigarettes came on the market? The truth is that much of what we think we know about "Big Tobacco," smokeless tobacco, smoking and the benevolent mantle taken on by the ANTZ isn't "truth" at all."...those who advocate eliminating all tobacco use, or even all smoking, do not qualify as a third party. They are every bit as biased as the industry is. Indeed, it is almost impossible to find an example of a major tobacco company producing junk science or otherwise misleading the public and regulators about their research, whereas there are so many examples of anti-tobacco activist researchers doing so that it would be impossible to even begin to list them. If the [tobacco] industry is not trusted to control this research then they [anti-tobacco researchers] should not be trusted either."
Believe It OR Not
Kristin is speaking the truth