Was it something I said? Independent cuts Forest response to BLF
Friday, March 29, 2013 at 9:58 More on smoking and mental health.
Further to the publication of a report by the Royal College of Physicians, which I wrote about yesterday, the Independent invited Forest to respond to a comment by Professor Stephen Spiro, deputy chairman of the British Lung Foundation.
According to Spiro:
"Routinely considering whether someone presenting with a lung disease, or indeed any patient who smokes, might benefit from referral to mental health services, could make the key difference for many individuals."
After some consideration I replied:
"I would respectfully suggest that any doctor who routinely says to a patient who smokes that they might benefit from referral to mental health services will need his own head examining.
"Joking aside, the medical profession has a duty to treat everyone equally regardless of lifestyle. Such an idea represents a serious threat to people's personal liberty and I hope all right-thinking doctors will condemn it out of hand."
Needless to say my comment has not been published. I know print editions are limited for space but it failed even to make the online edition.
Last night I emailed the health editor, who wrote the story, to ask what had happened. (After all, it was he who contacted me for a comment.)
This morning he replied:
I filed it last night as soon as you delivered it but it has evidently been cut. Many apols. In my view it strengthened the story.
Just thought you'd like to know.
Reader Comments (6)
This looks like censorship Simon. Spiro's comment is vile but in case you haven't noticed, the media worship the medical establishment and permit nothing whatsoever to be said against it. Political medics are consistently portrayed in the more left wing rags (I include the BBC) as saintly guardians of our health whose only opponents are the vested interests of big business. By pointing out that Spiro is a less than appealing human being and what he is quoted as saying is illiberal to the point of authoritarian extremism you are way "off message".
Anyone who fails to see this is a deliberate hate campaign does so because it fits their own prejudices. My journalism students would fail if they handed in such a shoddy piece of work for an assignment. Shocking.
Demand the right of reply Simon. I know, and understand, why you're sceptical of the PCC but the time has come to make bias newspapers complicit in the hate campaign realise that they are being taken in.
My old news editor used to call it urinating up the back of the press and telling them it's raining. The hate and abuse has got to stop. There is no excuse for it.
It will never stop because journo's and editors simply want to keep on the right side of government funding for ads etc. 99% of the journo's don't even bother to investigate a story from the medical world, they simply print it word verbatim-they are sheeples!
@Phil Johnson
I think that you mean PR people Phil. The sheep who uncritically write and print what they are told are not to be confused with journalists and editors. Critical thinking is career limiting in the modern press so there are no journalists reporting health.
Maybe a part of the solution is a media outlet that is written by and on behalf of smokers that conforms to a standard of journalism higher than currently prevails. It would be expensive I know but if run by some form of smokers co-operative who knows it may catch on.
I cannot understand why organisations like Forest (which are the only groups in the privileged position of being asked for comments for publication on such smoking issues) don't make more of the link of smoking with mental issues - mild to serious. Spiro's comments are linked to the recent press statements about "loneliness and isolation increasing risk of death by 50%".
The scientifically unjustified smoking ban will undoubtedly have increased isolation for many smokers and their friends, and as many of the most perceptive of the medical profession are aware (online research will show) , many (if not most) smokers are self medicating.
Few anti-smokers seem to want to try and understand why people smoke and the serious impact the ban has had on their social lives.
Isn't it up to groups like Forest to promote this understanding? - Otherwise, why are they collecting financial contributions? What are they in business for?
I try to publicise via a "Reality Check" at www.ipcsmokefree.org, to get people to begin to understand the consequences of this unfair legislation,but am aware I have little public profile.
I despair that the organisations supposedly leading the fight against smoking bans seem to have no strategic plan for taking on the anti-smoking rhetoric - they just respond (or not) to further constraints initiated by the anti-smoking industry and always seem on the back foot.
Why not take advantage of the recent publicity on smoking and stress or other mental conditions to try and garner some sympathy for change from the general public? E.G a campaign such as
"Let such people have "Private Smoking Rooms" where they can once again socialise amongst like minded people!"