Nicotine most harmful cigarette ingredient, GPs think

[BuGlen]

A recent article linked below that shows how GPs (general practitioners / family doctors) are generally misinformed about the harm related to nicotine and how that might effect harm reduction programs.

Nicotine most harmful cigarette ingredient, GPs think | Nursing in Practice

 

[Paulette]

Pretty sad that we as vapers have to educate our own doctors on this!

 

[BuGlen]

Pretty sad that we as vapers have to educate our own doctors on this!

Agreed. However, they are human and most see quite a few patients in one day, so I don't think they have a bunch of time to catch up on things that are not yet widely acknowledged. If we can each educate our own family doctors, which many already have, then maybe we can change this trend.

 

[AgentAnia]

Anyone in the medical profession who knows so little about nicotine should be stripped of his/her license. Moral of this story: In most cases, you are your own best preventive-health-care provider.

 

[Vocalek]

Let's give this article some exposure. I shared on Facebook and Twitter.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Let's give this article some exposure. I shared on Facebook and Twitter.

shared on facebook.

 

[AgentAnia]

Just wish this article didn't have such a "harmful" headline. "Surveyed GPs Show Ignorance about Nicotine" would suit me better...

 

[BuGlen]

Just wish this article didn't have such a "harmful" headline. "Surveyed GPs Show Ignorance about Nicotine" would suit me better...

Completely agree. The article itself is impartial and even seems to support harm reduction, but the title doesn't really reflect the content.

 

[e-pipeman]

A very balanced article for which many thanks. A GP at my practice insisted that PG was a poison.

 

[AgentAnia]

A very balanced article for which many thanks. A GP at my practice insisted that PG was a poison.

I hope he wasn't your doctor, or if he was, you got yourself a new one!

 

[e-pipeman]

I hope he wasn't your doctor, or if he was, you got yourself a new one!

He's actually a very good doctor but all doctors imho have some "blind spots".

 

[BuGlen]

He's actually a very good doctor but all doctors imho have some "blind spots".

I believe this to be true in all professions. We're all just human, not computers, so nobody is going to have all the information correct all of the time. I would say that if any doctor is presented the evidence and still turns a blind eye, then they are not good at their chosen profession. Ignorance can be corrected with education, willful ignorance cannot.

 

[AgentAnia]

I beg to differ with you, Sir. A doctor who is so ignorant of chemistry and biology as to call a substance that is commonly used in personal hygiene products, drug delivery products, and in some hospitals in their air handlers, a poison, is not a GOOD doctor.

Though I differ with you, however, I will defend to the death (well, almost) your right to choose your own physician.

 

[e-pipeman]

I believe this to be true in all professions. We're all just human, not computers, so nobody is going to have all the information correct all of the time. I would say that if any doctor is presented the evidence and still turns a blind eye, then they are not good at their chosen profession. Ignorance can be corrected with education, willful ignorance cannot.

Spot on.

 

[BuGlen]

I beg to differ with you, Sir. A doctor who is so ignorant of chemistry and biology as to call a substance that is commonly used in personal hygiene products, drug delivery products, and in some hospitals in their air handlers, a poison, is not a GOOD doctor.

Though I differ with you, however, I will defend to the death (well, almost) your right to choose your own physician.

I understand your point, and I appreciate your passion on the subject. However, the field of medicine is quite vast and that is why there are so many specialized medical professionals. The article was talking about GPs (standard family doctors) who generally do the standard maintenance type work and refer you to specialists as needed. If the article was talking about internists or oncologists, then I would be firmly in your camp and equally as passionate.

 

[AgentAnia]

I understand your point, and I appreciate your passion on the subject. However, the field of medicine is quite vast and that is why there are so many specialized medical professionals. The article was talking about GPs (standard family doctors) who generally do the standard maintenance type work and refer you to specialists as needed. If the article was talking about internists or oncologists, then I would be firmly in your camp and equally as passionate.

I was responding to e-pipeman's comment about his doctor (not about the GP survey article).

I stand by my general opinion, though, and most respectfully beg to differ with you about general practitioners knowing about nicotine. I believe most GP's discuss the dangers of smoking and smoking cessation with all of their patients who smoke (which, statistically, would be around 20% of them). I don't expect them to know about conditions they don't often see and aren't qualified to treat, but it seems to me that the subject of "smoking" should include at least a general medical knowledge about relative risks of tobacco, nicotine, and harm reduction.

 

[e-pipeman]

In fairness to GPs I should mention that they probably dislike nicotine because of its vasoconstrictive properties. Used carelessly it is also highly toxic, and I can imagine that GPs may well assume that careless use is not unlikely. Just my opinion, nothing lapidary here.

 

[thewrightstuff]

I find this very interesting because yesterday, I was talking to an uncle of mine, who was the head of family medicine at Hopkins for 15 years, and is a smoking cessation expert. He is a big believer in nicotine replacement therapy, specifically the lozenges and gum, and believes that nicotine is not the harmful ingredient. I talked to him about ecigs, and showed him my ego setup, which he thought was pretty cool (he said that his patients and the support group that he runs usually carry much bigger "pieces", as mine is a spinner 400 MaH with an evod), but he did start to tow the party line about the FDA needing to look deeper into nic juice and delivery systems just to be sure that there is nothing bad in them.

All in all, I came out of that conversation very pleased that he thought that ecigs were a good idea, and as his nephew, who smoked for over 20 years, he was thrilled that I am no longer a slave to the tobacco.

 

[BuGlen]

I was responding to e-pipeman's comment about his doctor (not about the GP survey article).

Gotcha. My mistake. My mind was still in the context to the article and I did not make any assumption the e-pipeman's example was not a GP.

I stand by my general opinion, though, and most respectfully beg to differ with you about general practitioners knowing about nicotine. I believe most GP's discuss the dangers of smoking and smoking cessation with all of their patients who smoke (which, statistically, would be around 20% of them). I don't expect them to know about conditions they don't often see and aren't qualified to treat, but it seems to me that the subject of "smoking" should include at least a general medical knowledge about relative risks of tobacco, nicotine, and harm reduction.

I completely agree that general knowledge of nicotine use (absent smoking) and harm reduction methods absolutely should be a part of the conversation a GP has with their patients who smoke. I just don't agree that the most recent studies are widely accepted yet in the medical community, and therefore we need to be the catalyst to get our GPs to do the research, if they haven't already done so. I think we mostly agree, and we might just be arguing semantics.

 

[AgentAnia]

I just don't agree that the most recent studies are widely accepted yet in the medical community, and therefore we need to be the catalyst to get our GPs to do the research, if they haven't already done so. I think we mostly agree, and we might just be arguing semantics.

I agree that we mostly agree, and probably more than you think! Doctors are human (more's the pity... jk) and probably read all the ANTZ propaganda that's so prevalent these days, unfortunately a lot of it in medical journals. So yes, we need to go knock some medical heads together to get them to do proper research on the issue. (Both sides. Let's be fair and objective.)