Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
The Therapeutic State
- Jeffrey A Schaler (24 March 2000)
-
Disinformation
- Edward L Sweda (24 March 2000)
-
Irresponsible journalism
- Mayer Brezis (13 April 2000)
|
|
|||
|
Jeffrey A Schaler, Adjunct Professor, Department of Justice, Law, and Society School of Public Affairs, American University, Washington, DC
Send response to journal:
|
If research found a connection between the amount of tobacco advertising in newspapers and the manner and amount that the papers write about cigarettes, then the writing against smokers, smoking, and the tobacco industry should also be positively correlated with the amount of government-funded anti-smoking and anti-tobacco industry "research" and propaganda. (3) Israeli public health experts and health minister, Shlomo Benizri, much like their American alcohol-temperance-era counter-parts, are staunch supporters of a "therapeutic state," a state where medicine and government are united in much the same way church (synagogue) and state in theocratic states are. (8) Doctors and "public health" officials replace priests and rabbis. Moral management masquerades as medicine. The distinction between behavior and disease is obscured. Questioning the faith (science) is heresy. (6) The term "health Nazis," is taboo because it is apt: The Nazis conducted the largest anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaign of the 20th century. (2) The similarities between the discrimination against smokers, the tobacco industry, and capitalism 70 years ago and today are striking. (1) However, what is more disturbing is when government gets into the business of calling ethical issues medical issues: Smoking is a behavior. Cancer is a disease. (4,5) The therapeutic state is far more dangerous than smoking could ever be. (7) References: 1. J.R. Gusfield. 1998. The social symbolism of smoking and health. In R. L. Rabin and S. Sugarman (Eds.) Smoking Policy: Law, Politics, and Culture, pp. 49-68. 1993. London: Oxford University Press. 2. R.N. Proctor. 1999. The Nazi War on Cancer. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 3. J. Siegel-Itzkovich. 2000. British Medical Journal;320:826 ( 25 March ) 4. J.A. Schaler. 2000. Addiction Is a Choice. Chicago: Open Court. 5. J.A. Schaler and M.E. Schaler (Eds.). 1998. Smoking: Who Has the Right? Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. 6. T.S. Szasz. 1976. Ceremonial Chemistry: The Ritual Persecution of Drugs, Addicts, and pushers. With a new preface. Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications, 1985. 7. T.S. Szasz. 1963. Law, Liberty, and Psychiatry: An Inquiry into the Social Uses of Psychiatry. With a new preface. Syracuse University Press, 1989. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Edward L Sweda, Senior Attorney Tobacco Control Resource Center, Boston, USA
Send response to journal:
|
The disinformation contained in the outrageous Ha'aretz article serves the interests of the tobacco industry, which has attacked the science of passive smoking for at least a generation. A Wall Street Journal article in April 1998 began, "Determined to keep reports about second-hand smoke from mushrooming, the tobacco industry mobilized a counterattack in the mid-1980s to systematically discredit any researcher claiming perils from passive smoke."(1) An official for BAT Industries in 1983 listed as a strategy: "Conduct research to anticipate and refute claims about the health effects of passive smoking." In a 1981 Philip Morris document, an executive suggests funding studies "with the intent to publish data which refutes specific assertions by the anti-smoking forces." Contrast these statements with what a company truly devoted to honest scientific research would have said: "Conduct research to learn the truth about the health effects of passive smoking." Because smoking bans hurt Big Tobacco's profits, Big Tobacco's massive disinformation campaign about secondhand smoke continues worldwide. (1) Hwang S. Tobacco Memos Detail Passive-Smoke Attack. Wall Street Journal, 28 April 1998; B1, B8. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mayer Brezis, Professor of Medicine Hadassah University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel
Send response to journal:
|
The report denying any risk from passive smoking by the daily newspaper "Haaretz" clearly misquoted the recent BMJ analysis by Copas (1). Moreover, it reported blatantly wrong information: e.g., a quotation from a prominent cardiologist saying, "years of work have been destroyed by the new evidence" (he denied to me having said that or even having been interviewed!). A recent study by the Channing Laboratory of Harvard was also quoted to deny the risk of passive smoking. Since I couldn't find such a study and the journalist couldn't remember her source, I asked Prof. D. Kasper, Head of the Channing Laboratory, who replied: "I am not aware of what article is being referred to. As you are aware, we have published a great deal on passive smoking and in every case I can remember the results have been associated with some health effects." Barnes (2) showed that the only factor associated with concluding that passive smoking is not harmful was whether an author was affiliated with the tobacco industry (odds ratio 88.4, p<0.001). One can only speculate (3) on the motives of the newspaper to publish an article that has increased the asymmetry of information between physicians and consumers. The misinformation tactic of the tobacco industry - "doubt is our product"(4)- has certainly been nicely served. According to a report in today's Lancet (5), describing the sophisticated and powerful campaign by the tobacco industry to subvert scientific processes and shape public opinion, one might expect to see more attempts to manipulate the media. (1) Copas JB, Shi JQ. Reanalysis of epidemiological evidence on lung cancer and passive smoking. BMJ 2000;320:417-8 (2) Barnes DE, Bero LA. Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA 1998;279:1566-1570 (3) Cohen JE, Ashley MJ, Ferrence R, Brewster JM, Godstein AO. Institutional addiction to tobacco. Tob Control 1999;8:70-74 (3) Smith GD, Phillips AN. Passive smoking and health: should we believe Philip Morris's "experts"? BMJ 1996;313:929-933 (4) Ong EK, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study. Lancet 2000;355:1253-59 |
|||