Through the years we always expressed disdain for doctors who take advantage of their position to act on their patient’s emotions. This time is no exception.
Here we have yet another example of unethical medical conduct – a complete violation of the doctor-patient relationship and an abuse of the trust that people (wrongly, nowadays?) put in their physicians. It does not seem that doctors have ethics any longer, as – at least some of them – seem to have embraced a holy crusade for which science, morality and ethics matter nothing at all, as long as they reach their goal. The end justifies the means in its worst possible expression.
“Melanie Newbould, a pathologist, said that she could not be sure why Jake Dunning, seven weeks old, had died but that passive smoking may have played a part.”
Not only should that doctor be ashamed to be a doctor for such an assertion, but disciplinary actions should be taken against her – if there was any ethical and professional sense left, that is. Newbould, in fact, has absolutely no basis to make such statement – other than her rotten ideology that dictates that any means – no matter how low and immoral, such as taking advantage of the grief of parents to push political correctness – to hide her own ignorance of the actual cause of death is acceptable. Again: calling parents killers of their children without any foundation is an acceptable practice to push an ideology – and ideology designed to mask medical incompetence. Moreover, this doctor is interupting and twisting the grieving process of the parents, turning the natural anger of mourning inward to induce self-loathing in the parents.
Newbould has no foundation because there is no scientific proof whatsoever that passive smoking causes SIDS or anything else. And “authoritative” political trash science – such as the recent Bristol University "study" (based on a collection of other trash studies) designed to validate the antismoking laws and propaganda of a rotten government and institutions – is no proof whatsoever. It only proves, conclusively, how low and dirty those institutions have become.
And read the closing paragraph, clearly meant to hammer the belief home, into the head of the reader:
‘Professor George Haycock, from the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths, said: “If no women smoked in pregnancy, about 60 per cent of cot deaths could be avoided.”’
Again, “professor” Haycock has ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to corroborate such statement; and he does not even have the decency to make it clear that such statement, at best, is his own opinion. Instead, he takes the tone of certainty – as if, indeed, it was demonstrated that passive smoking causes 60% of the SIDS cases. He is "science", you see. Or is he just a legend in his own mind, and yet another dishonest antitobacco operative who takes advantage of his position?
At any rate there is no causality established – not at all. And “professor” Haycock is lying. Do not believe him, or the propaganda. Again, it is not proven by any stretch of the imagination that smoking around kids or infants is harmful.