The deceased man's age has been variously quoted as 57, 67 and 71. He was reported as suffering from emphysema and atherosclerosis. It was reported that he had suffered from a type of lipoid pneumonia. It is assumed due to the inquest result that a full range of tests were not performed at autopsy to determine the precise cause of death and the precise agent responsible. The e-cigarette liquid involved was probably not tested. A doctor (we assume) called for an inquest, but the outcome could never have been of any possible use or relevance because none of the information required to produce a meaningful result appears to have been available to the coroner, neither was any form of correct legal or logical argument presented (we assume) in order to reach a true conclusion (see numbered items following). A doctor is involved who has obviously promoted his own personal agenda in some aspects of the case. A doctor is involved who is well-known to hold strong views against
harm reduction solutions being available to consumers.
We cannot confirm any of these matters, which are all hearsay, one reason being that the inquest transcript is not available. Either no record of the proceedings was taken or it has been lost.
As you can see, there are numerous unusual features to this incident.
We will be reporting the doctor's conduct to the General Medical Council during the coming week, and asking for a full investigation. The only concrete statements that can be made until that investigation is completed are:
1. Emphysema sufferers are well-known to have a higher risk of contracting pneumonia. If a patient with emphysema dies of pneumonia, the event is not considered remarkable. Emphysema patients need to avoid any/all activities that might involve an increased risk of pneumonia.
2. The doctor responsible for the care of an emphysema patient must instruct them clearly and unambiguously that inhalation of any substance whatsoever must cease. If the doctor does not do this, then he is negligent. If the patient subsequently dies, then a decision must be reached as to whether the doctor was negligent or the patient in effect committed suicide due to an addiction that could not be controlled. There are no other possible results.
3. If a person has serious lung disease, and/or advanced illness caused by smoking, then any further inhalation of any substances whatsoever, unless prescribed by a doctor, is tantamount to suicide. The exact substance inhaled or
device used is irrelevant since it is no different to a rope used by a person to hang themselves with - the rope is not at risk of being blamed.
4. The death of an addict may well be an unfortunate event, but it cannot be blamed on third parties unless gross negligence is shown. Further, it cannot be blamed on the use of
devices that when used correctly by normal persons who are not seriously ill will have no harmful effects. If this were the case we would need to ban many things that are useful and safe when used correctly but can easily be abused.