The tobacco harm reduction literature is replete with vague language, far-reaching claims, and unwarranted certainty. The American Thoracic Society has increasingly recognized the need for a framework for reliably making such claims. Evidence-based standards improving the scientific value and transparency of harm reduction claims are expected to improve their trustworthiness, clarity, and consistency. Methods: Experts from relevant American Thoracic Society committees identified key topic areas for discussion. Literature search strategy included English language articles across Medline, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Collaborative databases, with expanded search terms including tobacco, addiction, smoking, cigarettes, nicotine, and harm reduction. Workgroup members synthesized their evidentiary summaries into a list of candidate topics suitable for inclusion in the final report. Breakout groups developed detailed content maps of each topic area, including points to be considered for suggested recommendations. Successive draft recommendations were modified using an iterative consensus process until unanimous approval was achieved. Patient representatives ensured the document's relevance to the lay public. Results: Fifteen recommendations were identified, organized into four framework elements dealing with: estimating harm reduction among individuals, making claims on the basis of population impact, appropriately careful use of language, and ethical considerations in harm reduction. Discussion: This statement clarifies important principles guiding valid direct and inferential harm reduction claims. Ideals for effective communication with the lay public and attention to unique ethical concerns are also delineated. The authors call for formal systems of grading harm reduction evidence and regulatory assurances of longitudinal surveillance systems to document the impact of harm reduction policies.
Hospital ethics committees (HECs) are typically charged with addressing ethical disputes, conflicts, and dilemmas that arise in the course of patient care. HECs are not widely viewed as having a therapeutic role for health care professionals who experience psychological distress or anticipatory grief in the course of discharging professional duties. A case is presented in which an ethics consultation was requested, chiefly, to secure emotional support for health care professionals who had been asked by a patient to discontinue life-sustaining treatments. As the case demonstrates, HECs may be called upon to provide emotional support and reassurance to health care professionals who willingly carry out psychologically difficult actions, even though these actions may be ethically uncontroversial. In providing this service, the HEC may not necessarily engage in its customary activity of deliberating an ethics issue and resolving a conflict but may still provide valuable assistance, as in the case presented.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.