Can it be Ethical to Apply Limited Resources in Low-income Countries to Ineffective, Low-reach Smoking Cessation Strategies? A Reply to Bitton and Eyal

Public Health Ethics 5 (1):29-37 (2012)
Abstract
Bitton and Eyal's lengthy critique of our article on unassisted cessation was premised on several straw-man arguments. These are corrected in our reply. It also confused the key concepts of efficacy and effectiveness in assessing the impact of cessation interventions and policies in real-world settings; ignored any consideration of reach (cost, consumer acceptability and accessibility) and failed to consider that clinical cessation interventions which fail more than they succeed also may ‘harm’ smokers by reducing agency. Our article addresses each of these problems, concluding that any consideration of the ethics of promoting smoking cessation in low-income nations should begin and end with the question of whether the strategies to be adopted have any prospect of influencing significant numbers of smokers to quit
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/phe/phr035
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 31,317
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Smoking and Social Justice.Kristin Voigt - 2010 - Public Health Ethics 3 (2):91-106.
Added to PP index
2012-01-10

Total downloads
15 ( #354,243 of 2,223,805 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #93,082 of 2,223,805 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature