Abstract

In an accompanying feature article, Parker argued that general practitioners should support efforts by the National Health Service to reduce greenhouse gases by avoiding metered-dose inhalers and by prescribing similarly effective inhalers with smaller carbon footprints.1 He also argued that patients are not morally justified in declining to use dry powder inhalers which do not contain greenhouse gases and when judged to be readily available and similarly effective, unless, when patients resist that option, their trust in the professional relationship is undermined.1 Prescribers should, therefore, take account of factors not only concerning the benefits and costs to individual patients including the strength of the professional relationship, but broader social considerations including potential effects on climate change and planetary health. In this commentary, I present three additional factors to broaden the context of Parker’s excellent analysis. The first is that a discussion with patients on the effects of various forms of inhalers on the environment may bring to their attention the seriousness of anthropogenic climate change and open opportunities …