The price of coffins: specious arguments by eminent doctors against the dangers of tobacco

doi:10.1136/bmj.319.7225.1621

From trainee to consultant, BMJ Group offers doctors around the world tailored information, special events, learning resources and recruitment services at every step along their career path.

... by doctors, for doctors, for patients
We are open for entries!

Online learning

BMJ Learning

High-quality CME / CPD for doctors and other healthcare professionals. BMJ Learning features hundreds of accredited, peer-reviewed learning modules in text, video, and audio formats. Find out more

Courses and Qualifications

BMJ Masterclasses

BMJ Masterclasses, led by experts, help clinicians to use the latest evidence and recent guidelines in practice and meet their CPD/CME requirements. Find out more

Exam Preparation

The leading provider of online exam preparation, helping over 167,000 healthcare professionals to pass their exams. Find out more

onExamination

Search all BMJ education articles:

From

Limit by

This article has a correction

Please see: The price of coffins: specious arguments by eminent doctors against the dangers of tobacco

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

P Cowen, retired senior lecturer

22 Congreve Way, Bardsey, Leeds LS17 9BG

One does not avert death by ignoring the price of coffins.

Ernest Bramah, Kailung Unrolled His Mat

In June 1957 the BBC radio news reported on a white paper, prepared by Doll and Hill, which had been presented to parliament.1 The paper claimed that cigarette smoking appreciably increased a person's risk of developing lung cancer, with the incidence increasing in proportion to the number of cigarettes smoked. This news was published in a statement by the Medical Research Council,2 which referred to Doll and Hill's findings published in the BMJ and the Lancet. The minister of health at the time was asked in parliament what he intended to do about the findings His response was “nothing” (which was the case) and that it was up to the medical officers of health to act on this information as they saw fit.

Summary points

Good evidence shows that smoking causes lung cancer

The media's response to this information was initially resistant

Specious arguments were used to detract from the real issue, which confused the general public and lessened its concern

After 40 years there has been little change in smoking rates

Responses to the white paper

Having smoked over 20 cigarettes a day for 11 years I was alarmed by this information and decided to stop immediately; I have not smoked since. Shortly after quitting I began to take an interest in the response to the white paper and was surprised by what I found. In general, newspaper articles reflected resistance to the findings—for example, the chairman of the Tobacco Workers Trade Union was reported in the tabloid press about 1960 as saying that cigarettes alone could not be blamed for lung cancer as no …