The Government has announced the body that will replace Public Health England.
It's called the Office for Health Promotion and it's due to be launched in the autumn.
According to the press release issued by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), the:
No mention of smoking in those bullet points but associating smoking with poor mental health (Stopping smoking may improve mental health) is part of the anti-smoking agenda in 2021 so bear that in mind.
Also, if you scroll down, the press release reads:
The Office will address and tackle important public health issues, including obesity and nutrition, mental health across all ages, physical activity, sexual health, alcohol and tobacco, amongst other areas.
More interesting though is this detail:
The Office will recruit an expert lead who will report jointly into the Health Secretary and the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty.
The identity of that ‘expert lead’ is crucial, I think, so it will be interesting to see who gets the job.
Meanwhile Whitty is said to be in line for a knighthood for his 'tireless' work amid the pandemic, which is fair enough if a bit premature.
But it was only last week that the Guardian was singing his praises to an extent that made me rather nervous.
According to science editor Ian Sample and political editor Heather Stewart:
... Whitty is at his most devastating when he calls out wrongdoing. In a Gresham lecture on lung cancer last month, he was clear where blame lay for the most common cancer death in Britain. “This is cancer entirely for profit,” he said.
“Almost all of the people who get this cancer ... have got the cancer, because an extremely wealthy, incredibly sophisticated marketing industry – the cigarette industry – has got them addicted to cigarettes at a young age and kept them addicted the rest of their lives, and then they die. This should never be a cancer blamed on individuals. This is a cancer created by industry for profit.”
I would never 'blame' anyone for getting cancer (who even thinks like that?) but Whitty's comments don't sound like someone who believes in choice and personal responsibility. They are also a far cry from his measured responses to questions at the Government's Covid briefings.
Risk is part of life. What's important is to educate people so they are well aware of the risks they are taking with their lifestyle and after that it's up to them.
Crying foul and blaming cigarette manufacturers (or the food and drink industries) is not a good look, especially when most smoking-related diseases, including the vast majority of cancers, can be caused by many factors, including things that are out of our control.
While we're on the subject of smoking, let's focus on accurate, truthful information, not the propaganda that frequently passes for education in public health circles.
If Whitty is awarded a knighthood it will undoubtedly give him even more influence. There will probably be a honeymoon period too when the public, and government, will support almost any measure he chooses to approve.
As for the Office for Health Promotion, I sincerely hope the Government isn't merely rearranging the deckchairs by replacing Public Health England with a very similar body but I suspect that many of the same names will pop up in comparable positions.
I shall be particularly interested to see what happens to Martin Dockrell, PHE's tobacco programme lead who previously worked for ASH.
Or will there be some new faces at the Office for Health Promotion?
I shall be writing more about the OHP, I'm sure, but here's a reminder of a post I wrote in October last year.
I highlighted the way in which anti-smoking lobbyists – led by ASH – were coordinating complaints about the Government's plans to reorganise the public health system.
I then went on to list each member of the stakeholder advisory group the DHSC had set up to help it decide who should be responsible for health improvement in future.
In light of today's announcement – and the possible direction of travel for the new body – the post is worth reading again.
I am still gobsmacked by an article – by one of the advisory group's members – about David Bowie following his death in 2016.
According to Dr Jeanelle de Gruchy who is currently president of the Association of Directors of Public Health but was director of Public Health at the London Borough of Haringey at the time of Bowie's death:
I normally hold my tobacco industry genocide outrage in check in social settings … until my friend said what a wonderful, quiet, dignified death he had had. Actually no I opined, not acceptable — why did he go quietly, why didn’t he use his celebrity status to speak out about the epidemic caused by smoking?
Did Dr de Gruchy keep her 'tobacco industry genocide outrage in check' when she was advising the government on its new public health strategy? I think we should be told.
See The group advising the Government on public health 'improvement'.
Update: Tackling obesity is Government's 'top priority' in pandemic recovery (Telegraph)