Aim Is To Ensure Canadians "Butt Out" When Driving In Cars With Kids
Main Category: Smoking / Quit SmokingAlso Included In: Pediatrics / Children's Health
Article Date: 21 Jan 2008 - 1:00 PST
email to a friend 
printer friendly 
opinions
| Patient / Public: |  |
4.6 (10 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: | |
5 (2 votes) |
| Article Opinions: | 26 posts |
On Wednesday, January 23, The Lung Association will launch a campaign to help Canadians push their provincial governments to tackle the issue of smoking in cars when children are present. The Association wants provincial governments to ensure people "butt out" if they are driving with kids.
Starting on January 23, 2008, Canadians will be able to take part in the campaign by visiting www.cleanairforkids.ca to send a message directly to their provincial representative, Health Minister and Premier. The campaign will run until the end of 2008.
"This campaign is about protecting Canada's children from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke," said Nora Sobolov, President and CEO of The Lung Association, "Working together with Canadians, we are confident that action can be taken to ensure kids are not subject to smoking in cars."
Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 dangerous chemicals and carcinogens. Second-hand smoke in vehicles is especially potent when it is concentrated in a confined space.
Research shows that children exposed to second-hand smoke are at a higher risk for many health problems.
Children and babies who are exposed to second hand smoke on a regular basis are at higher risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), asthma, and ear infections. They are also more likely to develop cancer and heart disease as adults. Second-hand smoke can make symptoms worse for kids who have asthma or a respiratory infection. Additionally, there is growing evidence that kids who are exposed to second-hand smoke before and after birth have more behaviour problems, shorter attention spans, and lower marks at school than their peers who aren't exposed to smoke.
Established in 1900, The Lung Association is one of Canada's oldest and most respected health charities, and the leading national organization for science-based information, research, education, support programs and advocacy on lung heath issues.
The Lung Association
Visit our smoking / quit smoking section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
12 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/94520.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/94520.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (26)
Smoking In Cars With Children Present
posted by Thomas Laprade on 21 Jan 2008 at 8:28 pmI'm afraid that the proposal to ban smoking in cars occupied by children represents an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and autonomy of parenthood. The autonomy to make one's own decision about risks to subject a child to is not to be interfered with lightly.
It should only be done in cases where there is a substantial threat of severe harm to the child. Interfering with parental autonomy in a case where there is only minor risk involved is unwarranted.
Let me explain what I mean by substantial threat of severe harm and minor risk.
If an infant is riding in a car without a car seat, there is a substantial threat of severe harm should the car be involved in an accident. In fact, if the car is in any major accident, severe harm to the child is almost certain. Death is likely if the accident is severe. The connection between not being in the child restraint and suffering severe injury or death in an accident is direct, immediate, and definitive.
On the other hand, exposure to secondhand smoke in a car in most cases merely poses an increased risk of upper respiratory or middle ear infection. The likelihood, more often than not, is that the child will not suffer any harm. What is involved is only an elevation of risk for an ailment. There is no certainty of harm, nor is there any substantial threat of severe harm. The harm, if any occurs, is removed in time from the exposure and in most cases it is impossible to directly connect the exposure with the ailment. Thus, the connection is neither direct, immediate, nor definitive.
This difference is not subtle. In fact, it is so stark that it serves as the basis for deciding when society should interfere with parental autonomy regarding exposure of their own children to health risks. Generally, causing harm to children or putting them at substantial risk of severe, direct, immediate, and definitive harm is viewed as something for which there is a legitimate government interest in interfering with parental autonomy. Simply placing children at an increased risk of more minor health effects is not something for which there is a legitimate government interest in interfering with parental autonomy.
If we extended the argument of the supporters of this proposed legislation, then we would also have to support laws that regulate a wide range of parental activity that takes place in the private home which places children at increased risk of adverse health effects.
We would have to ban parents from smoking in the home. We would have to ban parents from drinking more than a drink or two at a time in the home. We would have to ban parents from using insecticides and pesticides. We would have to ban parents from allowing their children out in the sun without sunscreen. We would have to ban parents from allowing their children to ride giant roller coasters. We would have to ban parents from serving their children foods that contain trans-fats. We would have to ban parents from serving their children peanuts before age 3. We would have to ban parents from allowing their children to drink soda that contains sodium benzoate and citric acid.
And more:
Allowing their infants to play with walkers;
Allowing their children to watch more than four hours of television every day;
Failing to ensure that their children get adequate physical activity;
Owning a wood-burning stove;
Failing to filter water that contains trihalomethanes;
Not boiling their babies'’ bottles before serving them milk;
Not breastfeeding their infants;
Allowing their children to watch violent television programs;
Allowing their children to watch R-rated movies;
Serving alcohol at a party;
Allowing their children to drink alcohol; and
Failing to keep vitamins out of the reach of children.
One could easily argue that 'If you love your children, [these are all things] you should learn not to do.' That may or may not be true, but what is clear is that we should not interfere with parental autonomy by banning all of these things.
The question I find interesting is why a child advocate would single out smoking around one's children as the sole example of a situation in which the government interferes with the autonomy of a parent to make decisions regarding the exposure of her children to a health risk. What is it about smoking that, among all of the myriad above health risks to which parents often expose their children, it is the one and only one that is chosen to be regulated?
I fear that the answer is that there is a moral stigma attached to smoking as opposed to these other risky parenting behaviors. And I also fear that it is the anti-smoking movement that has contributed to this moral stigma. What it ultimately comes down to, I'm afraid, is that the anti-smoking movement is starting to moralize. We are starting to try to dictate societal morals, rather than to stick to legitimate public health protection.
It's a dangerous line that we're crossing. Because once that line is crossed, there's little assurance that the autonomy of parents to make decisions regarding raising their children can or will be adequately protected.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
I Feel Sorry For Thomas' Children
posted by Julie Morgan on 22 Jan 2008 at 3:06 amI feel sorry for Thomas' children.
I am 16. I have a friend whose father reminds me of Thomas. He is sanctimonious, argumentative, and has his children and wife totally dominated. He is a bully and does whatever he likes. However, he makes the rest of the family feel guilty about this. He is an expert in making people feel guilty about complaining about his drinking.
I hate parents who bible bash and IQ bash - they are bullies. They use their superior intelligence to make others feel stupid.
People like Thomas should not be allowed to have children or be teachers!!
I Agree - Thomas Sucks!!
posted by Peter Jarvis on 22 Jan 2008 at 3:12 amWell said. Thomas sucks!! Whoever fights for the rights of adults to smoke in cars with kids is a bully and hates children. THOMAS - YOU SUCK!!
Peter 15.
Discrimination Against Children
posted by Alan Pritchard on 22 Jan 2008 at 3:16 amIt is disgusting to see an adult pontificate in such horrific ways. Thomas, stay away from children with your cancer sticks!!!!!!!!!
I am sending his letter to all children I know!! Defending the right to smoke in cars with children because there is no law to prosecute people from sterilizing baby bottles - talk about fascism against children.
Thomas - you are sick!!!! Sick!!! Sick!!!! Children cannot defend themselves. I bet you would not smoke if it were a 300 pound non-smoker in the car. But children - of course!!!
Alan 17
A Concerned Smoker
posted by Veronica Rodriguez on 22 Jan 2008 at 3:23 amI smoke, and I am a parent. I know for a fact that children hate parents smoking in their cars. I have asked some friends, who are smokers and have kids whether they smoke when their children are in the car. None of us do.
I am very concerned about the children of Thomas. I hope their well-being, mental as well as physical is being protected. It is not only a question of throwing statistics, etc, at children. Most children hate cigarette smoke, especially in cars. To continue smoking, regardless of whether there is or not proof about physical harm, is bullying. It is a total disregard for children rights and an insidious form of mental abuse against children.
Shame on you Thomas. How selfish and convoluted you have become - I suggest you give up smoking, it has made you very slimy and devious.
Smoking In Cars???
posted by Thomas Laprade on 22 Jan 2008 at 9:36 amCrack open the window and put the air intake at 'full'
The smoke is sucked out of the window
Simple solution eh!
Horrific
posted by Yayoi Zakamura on 22 Jan 2008 at 10:44 amI am from Japan. I am 18 years old. I smoke, my mother smoke and father smoke. During all my childhood my mother and father never smoked in car. It is clear, logical, and polite. Children do not like smoking in cars. Adults are responsible for children's health, and happiness.
Thomas!! If the health problem is not convincing you. OK. But you are making children very sad with your aggressive and unfair standpoint. It is your duty, as an adult, to protect children's happiness. I repeat - children do not like smoking in cars. Smoke in car, unhappy children, smoke in car, unhappy children. Earth to Thomas - Earth to Thomas - Penny dropped?????
Farting In Car With Children In Car
posted by Harriet Cummings on 22 Jan 2008 at 10:50 amFarting in a car with children in a car does not damage their health. Therefore I will continue farting non-stop in my car. As it is not killing my children, I have the right to fart in my car. I will eat lots of beans, hold the air in, wait till the children get in - and then fart, fart fart.
There are no studies that prove children do not like the smell of farting in cars - therefore I have the right to fart in a car when there are children in it. I will only stop stinking the car when there is a new law that prosecutes parents who do not make sure children have enough exercise.
As I said - farting in a car does not harm children's health. Also vomiting in the car.....
I Will Buy A Skunk
posted by Erica Van Drunsen on 22 Jan 2008 at 10:55 amI am going to buy a skunk. I will train it to stink when Thomas is in the car. Skunk smell does not kill. If Thomas wants fresh air, he can open a window.
I think there are no studies proving that two skunks in a car damage health. I can train two skunks.
Thomas should be given a medal for pioneering the rights of children.
Erica - 14
Keep Him Away From My School
posted by Pamela on 22 Jan 2008 at 10:56 amKeep that horrible man away from my school!!!
First 10 opinions shown. For all opinions, click through to the full thread.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.
Privacy Policy |
Terms and Conditions
MediLexicon International Ltd
Bexhill-on-Sea, United Kingdom
MediLexicon International Ltd © 2004-2012 All rights reserved.
