Richardpruen (talk | contribs) (→Suggested studies to add to this page: Added data reliability pyramid) |
Richardpruen (talk | contribs) (Added section for ethics and 1 journal special edition, and a paper on Australia) |
||
| Line 173: | Line 173: | ||
= Ethics = | |||
=== 2021: [https://academic.oup.com/ntr/issue/23/1 Ethics and Harm Reduction Approaches in Tobacco Control] (Special journal edition) === | |||
* This special issue of ''Nicotine and Tobacco Research'' focuses on the ethical aspects of tobacco harm reduction as a strategy in tobacco control. Several of the papers arise from presentations given in May 2018 at a Summer Academy on population-level bioethics hosted by the Brocher Foundation, organized by Samia Hurst, Dan Wikler, Nir Eyal, and Monica Magalhaes, specifically focusing on tobacco control. This event led to a call for papers for this journal. | |||
* The polarization of this debate and the impact this has on trainees and early career researchers and professionals in the field of nicotine and tobacco is discussed in the commentary by Carroll and colleagues. | |||
* This further motivates the search for ethical principles, which can explain why participants in these debates take the positions they do, and assist us to find an ethical position that can clarify and guide policy choice. | |||
* Thomas and colleagues consider the debate from the point of view of three major analytical approaches in bioethics—utilitarianism, (individual oriented) bioethics, and public health ethics—arguing that the first is not adequate to tackle the problems, but that the latter approaches are in fact complementary and draw to similar conclusions. | |||
* The papers in this issue consider what may be familiar problems to most readers of this journal, but in possibly unfamiliar ways drawing from the discipline of philosophy. | |||
=== 2019: [https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-019-09402-x A critical analysis of Australia’s ban on the sale of electronic nicotine delivery systems] === | |||
* Australia does not allow adult smokers to buy or use electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) that contain nicotine without a prescription. This paper critically evaluates the empirical and ethical justifications provided for the policy by Federal and State governments, public health advocates and health organisations. | |||
* We also argue that even if the evidence were stronger, it would not justify denying adult smokers the right to use ENDS either to quit smoking or as a long-term alternative to smoking cigarettes. | |||
* We outline ENDS policies that would more ethically address the public health concerns that motivated the current policy by allowing adult smokers to access ENDS for smoking cessation or tobacco harm reduction under tight regulations that discourage commercial promotion and adolescent use. | |||
* Hall, W., Morphett, K. & Gartner, C. A ''Neuroethics'' '''14''' (Suppl 3), 323–331 (2021). <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-019-09402-x</nowiki> | |||
=Mental Health= | =Mental Health= | ||
| Line 200: | Line 216: | ||
===See Also=== | ===See Also=== | ||
*[[ | *[[Nicotine therapeutic benefits|Mental Health under: Nicotine Therapeutic Benefits]] | ||
| Line 372: | Line 388: | ||
Click on the category link below for more studies by topic on ENDS and Nicotine. | Click on the category link below for more studies by topic on ENDS and Nicotine. | ||
[[Category:Studies, Surveys, and Papers]] | [[index.php?title=Category:Studies, Surveys, and Papers]] | ||
edits