When I see smokers with babies, I really want to yell at them...

[Sophrosyne1]

Given the fact that smoking can increase the chance of cot death, breathing problems, glue ear and a whole host of other nasties (not to mention cancer) why is it that every time I go into town or for a walk in my local area I see 'parents' who think it is OK to smoke all over their children? It makes me want to yell very loudly!!!

mamadiva well said about the abused children

I am quitting tomorrow we have got a deal on at work who can quit so I am down to my last 8 and refusing to buy anymore

Well done 2beornot2be am sure you'll manage the first 3 days are the worst then it's just trying to deal with social events... then stress LOL last time I did it I had a good reason now I need to keep myself motivated!

Come join this thread

Thanks mamadiva I have joined the thread :-) I hear you on the motivated thing thats why I am glad that others in my office have quit Hulan in your thread being one of them people

"pediatrics association was talking about adding smoking in a house with children under the age of 2 to the list of abuse so that these kids could be labelled 'at risk'. Thought it was a joke at first, Turns out they were serious. Considering the same group were constantly going on about the number of kids needing foster parenting for physical and sexual abuse, smoking seemed just a tad idiotic [also hypcritical since my pediatrician supported this and was a smoker!]"

SIDS is the largest killer of babies under one in the UK and parental smoking is implicated in 90% of these deaths.

17000 children are admitted to hospital every year with illnesses caused by passive smoking.

And it's 'a joke' for anyone to consider smoking around children as abuse? Even when it harms children to the point that they die or need to be hospitalised?

Sheesh

Jolly good luck 2beornot2b. Hope it's not too painful. I used to smoke and gave up 10 years ago. It was bloody difficult at first, but you do get there I never thought I would get to the point where I do not miss them or think about them. But you do, you really do.

Fecking hell Tittybangbang, bet no-one dares smoke around you with the statistics you come out with! I do think some of them are a little on the high side. SIDS is caused by many reasons, I think 90% is pushing it a bit isn't it. I suppose the 17000 children admitted every year would not just get the illnesses, presumably bronchial, asthma etc just out of sheer bad luck. Can you sincerely say it is because the parents smoke. That is a little unfair to say the least. I know smokers who go outside and never smoke in the house, you cannot possibly blame them for the children getting illnesses. Perhaps it's cause they leave the door open and cause a draught!

Oh FGS get home from work and it's still going. Look, if you think it's such a great idea to smoke in front of/around your own children, go ahead and do it. Just don't do it over other people and then we're all happy right??!

KVC my point exactly!

More evidence: Smoking (in pregnancy and after birth) is unfortunately now the major modifiable cause of SIDS.

The 90% statistic is not quite right though. According to Blair et al, 89% of SIDS babies have nothers who smoke - this is not quite the same thing as saying that 89% of SIDS cases are caused by smoking (but suggests that a very high number of cases are).

The odds of experiencing a cot death increase with the amount smoked inside the home.

And the 17,000 figure for child hospital admissions is very old now. But it was robust when used, and was calculated on the basis of EXCESS risk to children of smokers. So, 17,000 children were admitted for conditions caused by their parents smoking (based on the increased risk that children of smokers have). That figure only includes respiratory illness, by the way.

I would avoid the term "child abuse" when discsussing parental smoking. And I have never beleived that smokers are bad parents. But it is a child protection issue, and I don't think we do anyone any favours by covering up the harm that tobacco smoke causes - harming and sometimes even killing - babies and children.

More evidence: Smoking (in pregnancy and after birth) is unfortunately now the major modifiable cause of SIDS.

The 90% statistic is not quite right though. According to Blair et al, 89% of SIDS babies have nothers who smoke - this is not quite the same thing as saying that 89% of SIDS cases are caused by smoking (but suggests that a very high number of cases are).

The odds of experiencing a cot death increase with the amount smoked inside the home.

And the 17,000 figure for child hospital admissions is very old now. But it was robust when used, and was calculated on the basis of EXCESS risk to children of smokers. So, 17,000 children were admitted for conditions caused by their parents smoking (based on the increased risk that children of smokers have). That figure only includes respiratory illness, by the way.

I would avoid the term "child abuse" when discsussing parental smoking. And I have never beleived that smokers are bad parents. But it is a child protection issue, and I don't think we do anyone any favours by covering up the harm that tobacco smoke causes - harming and sometimes even killing - babies and children.

Very sound, sensible post firepile

Having worked with kids in care for ten years I think child abuse is too strong.
That said, I would beg all smokers to try to give up. My Dad died of lung cancer and my Mum is having terrible pain in her legs caused by hardening of the arteries.

How do they work out the figures as excess though?

My brother and wife smoke, in the house. Their son has had 3 hospital admissions for asthma. Me and sister never have smoked, her son has had 8 hospital admissions and my son has had 12 for asthma, all are similar ages (early teens). All three of us siblings have asthma so it's likely to be genetic. Now would my brothers son be classed as excess JUST because he smokes?? How is it worked out?

Right, Scaredoflove, Caveats at the ready - I am not an epidemiologist, and the figure appeared in a Royal College of Physicians report without showing the working.

BUT, there is a formula to work out the population impact of an exposure.

Basically, they will have needed to work out the following:

1. What proportion of all kids are exposed to smoking in the home - the population prevalence (PP)

1. The relative risk (RR) of exposure to smoking in the home causing respiratory illness in children (this figure is arrived at by calculating how much more likely children who live with smokers are to get these illnesses, based on robust studies)

1. The population attributal risk percent (PAR) is found as follows:

PP(RR-1)__ x 100 PP(RR-1)+1

1. The number of cases caused by exposure to smoke at home will be found by multiplying the PAR by the total number of cases of respiratory illness in the whole population.

Does this help?

To answer your specific questions - it's about the difference between assessing health in populations and health in individuals.

So your brother's kids (or yours or your sister's) aren't counted except in the calculation of the total number of cases of respiratory illness in the population as a whole. These figures use the available research data to predict a total for the population as a whole, but so not "track" individual cases.

crikey! I left school at 15 and only have an english O level lol

So it COULD be that just because the child is from a smoking home, they are lumped in as being excess? It doesn't take into account that the child may have had asthma anyway??

IMO that makes the figures a bit skewed then

I believe that my nephew would have asthma regardless of whether he came from smoking home or not. Not saying in any way that smoking around kids is something people should do (tho back to OP, I don't see the harm in smoking outside at all)

I feel sorry for smokers, I think they are being ostracised (sp?) when there are worse habits out there

I'm curious at how they arrive at those figures too.

I remember a very old study (perhaps the oldest) in which the researchers took a lot of old sick people and simply asked them if they had spent a lot of time with smokers (this was in a time when nearly everyone would have had to say yes)

The researchers actually said that they added some on to account for those who might have forgotten they had spent a lot of time with smokers.

Hello Scaredoflove - no it wouldn't be the case that children from smoking homes are lumped in as being excess. The point is that they are not "tracked" as individuals at all when the calulations are made (by which I mean that nobody is collecting smoking status of parents when these children are admitted to hospital and countring them - there are studies that will do this, but not the calculation I was asked to explain). I am not sure how I can explain this any more clearly, though!

The excess risk is a robust calculation, and it reflects what hapens in general. Nobody is saying that smoking causes all cases of asthma in children, for example. Just that children who come from smoking homes are more likely to have asthma - and the excess cases (compared with non-smoking homes with asthma) are caused by exposure to smoke.

Onager - but that reflects the fact that tobacco smoke is actually a very common exposure, and there is a lot of evidence that people do underestimate the extent of their exposure, for example by asking them ho expoised they are and comparing it with biological samples that show exposure.

There's a whole lot of work on secondhand smoke exposure - most of it in non-smokers who live with smokers, but some also measuring exposure in other settings. it is robust.

ok, so these figures aren't actual people and are just worked out by a formula?? The 17, 000 aren't actual cases? So they could be totally wrong then (sorry, I'm not very bright lol)

I thought the the figures came from real people (doh!) Thank you for trying to explain though

Hi Scaredoflove - I know it's hard, and I'm no statistician.

But - this formula is a very well developed (and accepted) mechanism for working out how many people are affected by exposure to something (another current example might be HPV and cervical cancer). It isn't just weird "antismoking sums voodoo". And the data on smoke exposure and increased risk in children is really pretty clear.

As I have said before, the 17,000 figure is also pretty old - it would be interesting to see what would happen if it were updated.

My head hurts! Off to bed for me.