This morning the Today programme asked 'Are smoking deaths under-reported?'.
According to the programme, "New research has come to light suggesting that doctors are reluctant to cite smoking as a cause of death on death certificates".
There followed an interview with pathologist Dr Ian Proctor who carried out the research.
Presenter John Humphreys, who barely lets me get a word in on the rare occasions I am on the programme, expressed astonishment at the findings and asked Dr Proctor why this should be.
His guest offered the none too convincing argument that doctors don't want to upset relatives of the diseased. (I think that's what he said. You can listen here.)
At no stage did Humphreys put forward the counter argument that the real reason that doctors are reluctant to cite smoking as a cause of death is because most smoking-related diseases are multifactorial and it is very difficult to state conclusively, on a death certificate or anywhere else, that smoking is the primary cause of death.
I'm not denying the serious health risks associated with smoking. It's just a fact.
By coincidence, a letter published in the British Medical Journal on September 30 was brought to my attention an hour or so ago.
The BMJ obviously hoped to stoke up a bit of interest because they issued the following press release which a BBC contact has kindly forwarded to me:
While smoking remains legal, the number of smokers is never going to fall significantly, argues public health doctor in a letter to this week's BMJ.
Dr Paul Jepson suggests the tabloid press publish a list of the names of the more than 250 people killed by smoking related disease each day, as part of a "fundamental re-think" on smoking. "Any other drug causing a fraction of the morbidity and mortality of tobacco would have been outlawed long ago," he says.
He explains that in 2010, mephedrone became a class B drug following widespread media coverage and reports of some deaths in the preceding months, although the evidence surrounding the dangers of mephedrone does not exist. This is in stark contrast to tobacco, he argues, which is responsible for around 100,000 deaths each year in the UK. Why should smoking get special treatment?
"People's attitude towards drugs should be evidence based, and not informed by politics or popular opinion. How must smokers feel when they are encouraged to quit their habit by the same government that welcomes tobacco taxes so gladly?"
He concludes: "While smoking remains legal, the number of smokers is never going to fall significantly - no matter how much taxes rise, how plain cigarette packets become, or how many millions of pounds is spent on cessation."
Frankly, this speaks for itself but in case you missed it I'll repeat the following sentence:
Dr Paul Jepson suggests the tabloid press publish a list of the names of the more than 250 people killed by smoking related disease each day ...
Note "killed by smoking related disease" not "killed by smoking". There is a huge difference, as any doctor who is asked to enter the cause of death on a death certificate will tell you.
See: Is a much more fundamental re-think on smoking needed? (BMJ)
Simon Clark
Curiously, although Dr Jepson's letter was published on September 30, the BBC has decided it is worth reporting now.
Tomorrow morning, therefore, I will be commenting on BBC Radio Essex (7.15), BBC Radio Bristol (7.40), BBC Three Counties (8.05) and BBC Radio Sheffield (9.05).
Pat Nurse will also be interviewed – on BBC Radio Lincolnshire – between 7.30 and 7.40.