FDA vs more rational minds

[ramblingrose]

I'm not allowed to post links yet, but here's a comment by Dr. Michael Siegel, an anti-smoking activist who is in favor of e-cigs. "This is about as idiotic and irrational an approach as I have ever seen in my 22 years in tobacco control and public health... A public policy maker who touts himself as being a champion of the public's health as well as some of the leading national health advocacy organizations are demanding that we ban what is clearly a much safer cigarette than those on the market, but that we allow, protect, approve, and institutionalize the really toxic ones."

 

[Kate]

There doesn't seem to be much rational thinking about vaping at all from any direction.

Import and selling in the US are banned by the FDA ... except when not.
Ditto Canada, Australia, Denmark, Hong Kong, and the rest I can't remember.
vaping is most certainly healthy ... except when it's not.
Vaping is not an NRT ... except when it helps us to quit.
Nicotine is not dangerous ... except when it's toxic.
Regulation is needed ... except when it doesn't seem fair.
The Chinese are out to kill the rest of us ... except when they give us cool gadgets (and lend us money and we need them ... but they're still not as good as us ).

Blah ... it's endless.

Anyone who makes absolute health statements is ignoring valid questions about risks.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ing/12317-how-valid-vaping-health-claims.html

They might be right and vaping might be safe or safer but we won't know for sure for a generation. It's not rational to say or believe statements about health until we know.

 

[yvilla]

Well, Kate, as you know I disagree slightly.

It would not be right to say it's "safe", I agree with you there.

But I am in complete accord with the several doctors, not just Dr. Siegel, both public figures as well as many forum member's personal physicians, who have said they are clearly "safer" and thus endorsed their use.

 

[Kate]

Hi Yvilla

To me it's a matter of objective honesty. Doctors have the following obligations:

* Respect for autonomy: acknowledging that patients can make decisions and giving them the information they need to make sensible and informed choices
* Doing no harm: doing the minimum harm possible to the patient
* Beneficence: balancing the risks, costs and benefits of medical action so as to produce the best result for the patient
* Justice: using limited medical resources fairly, legally and in accordance with human rights principles


There is no certain truth: the future course of a disease is almost always uncertain

* The professional should give the patient the range and likelihood of possible outcomes

BBC - Religion & Ethics - Lying: Lying and medical ethics

They may think something is safer but how do they know and how can they say for sure? It's not very scientific and therefore not ethical to ignore possible risks.

 

[wv2win]

"Anyone who makes absolute health statements is ignoring valid questions about risks."

Welcome back Kate! We missed you!

On this issue I am more in line with yvilla. I am all for proper testing and peer review of PV's. But my doctor, dentist and pharmiscist have all stated that PV's are much better for your health than using tobacco. That is the relevant point IMO.

 

[Kate]

Hi WV

Let's hope they're right, hey.

 

[Angela]

Nicotine and PG are both already in analogues.

I think that most people would agree that 'heating' (as in PVs) as opposed to 'burning' (as in analogues) must be safer.

This only leaves 'flavouring'. Many flavourings are also already used in analogues.

I agree that it is unwise (indeed, downright irresponsible) for anyone in a commercial situation to state categorically anything that they would not be able to prove in a court of law with appropriate lab test results, but I certainly do not think that it is unreasonable for anyone to conclude that it must be safer than traditional cigarettes.

 

[Nuck]

I think you would be hard pressed to find any medical professional who believes these could be as remotely unhealthy as cigarettes. With verifiable quality control on production of the liquid, the only fall back the governments will have will be to start focusing on the dangers of nicotine.