Unknown Danger of e-Cigarettes

[12pups]

Just back from a checkup with my family doctor (all good news, healthy as can be). But once again, the pre-visit checklist I went through with the nurse prior to the doc's arrival seemed to really fixate on e-cigarettes:
- Do you smoke e-cigarettes? (No.)
- Have you ever smoked e-cigarettes? (No.)
There was more than that about them, but I don't recall the entire series of questions. When I asked her about that, she said the state really wants to know. In fact, had I answered "yes" to any of the questions, she said she would have to record the last time I smoked one, the frequency I smoked them, and long I had used them.
So I had to ask: "What's the big deal with them? I don't understand the extraordinary concern. Some of the mixtures don't even have nicotine. Some are just flavors. Right?"
She said she didn't know, but that no one knows. It's such a huge trend that they need to collect data on it, and the state has asked that they gather this information.
That satisfied my curiosity pretty much. If you were curious, too, did it satisfy yours? Or... do you know something more than she did, or what's available online (such as what's here at the Web-MD)?:
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/features/electronic-cigarettes
Related weirdness: I always tell them no, I do not smoke cigarettes; I smoke a pipe and the occasional, ceremonial cigar. They always mark me as a non-smoker.

 

[12pups]

The idea that my pre-visit questionnaire contained something being collected by the state makes me curious now: What else on my questionnaire is being collected? (Heck, I never thought anyone paid attention to those things, just something to keep you busy while the doctor finished his between-patient coffee and danish)
Oh, and I'm not sure it was the "state." She seemed uncertain, was offering that as a possibility. Might be for the parent organization my family clinic is associated with, whose headquarters are in some other state. Whether it is mandatory for them to do this, or they are voluntarily supplying it, don't know. But I love this organization (Sanford). They are an excellent health care system.

 

[warren]

Is there better place to collect such tracking data from? The pool is large. What better collection point to track people's health over the years. This is especially true as people tend not to lie to doctors. One of these days sufficient data may be available to say that "pipe and occasional cigar smokers" are indeed more susceptible to any manner of illnesses. Or, such collection may indeed show these smokers (nonsmokers?) are not more susceptible. Gotta get the numbers from somewhere. Why not from the doctor/patient level?

 

[zitotczito]

Don't know if other states ask this but in PA they want to know if you use a seat belt.

 

[jpmcwjr]

Doctor's offices do that in PA? I can understand an insurance company query. Or maybe following an accident for which you were hospitalized.

 

[macaroon]

I did lots of preliminary research before deciding to take up the pipe; I don't like to put my money or my health on the line merely on a passing whim. But during that time I looked into e-cigarettes, or vaporizers, or whatever you choose to call them. It has been quite interesting to follow the studies and articles written about them. The majority of what I read suggests that they are significantly less detrimental to one's health than cigarettes, but there are occasionally studies that report significant concentrations of compounds such as formaldehyde. And of course there there are always differences in what sorts of devices are being tested (gas station e-cigs or higher quality devices) and how they're being tested. And all the studies seem to assume that the user inhales, which needs to be taken into consideration as well. The list of different variables and conditions goes on and on, just as with pipe smoking. It's really quite the hoopla.

 

[clickklick]

Pretty sure it someone trying to figure how profitable it is to regulate to the extreme.

 

[phred]

I work in IT, and there are regular blips of panic over printer toner particulate matter. Any particulate matter getting into one's lungs has the potential to cause problems, be it cigarette smoke, e-juice vapor, burning leaves, tire fires, or a smog-filled atmospheric inversion. I have no objection to the collection of medical data in order to further our knowledge of any long-term effects brought about by behavioral choices, even if my lab reports now include information on smoking cessation programs in spite of the fact that I barely smoke a bowl a week (less if there's respiratory crud going around, as has been the case lately). The rise of e-cigs as a risk reducer/cessation aid (and now a recreational choice) and the lack of any longitudinal studies makes it a prime target for data collection. That's how science works.
As for what's done with that data once the scientists have it and have done their analysis, well... That will likely veer off into politics/public policy.

 

[brass]

That's ominous. Doctors sharing patient information with the state.

 

[warren]

It's also shared with insurance companies and, I am sure, other interested parties. Who else should they share it with? Who else would be interested? They're more than likely sharing raw data as opposed to personal date, name, rank and serial number stuff. They are probably not sharing doctor/patient info. And, I personally have no problem with them sharing the fact that I have, oh I dunno, gall stones? Toe nail fungus? Strep throat?
If you have a full physical for an insurance policy do you not expect the results to be shared with the insurance company? Insurance companies serve at the sufferance of state and federal governments and so must toe the line. I had to take a full physical for employment many years ago. A full report was sent to the prospective employer which happened to be a government entity.
And, for those of you wanting national health care, the government needs that information to determine rates and level of medical care to be rationed out. Oh, and taxes necessary to fund the care.
Nothing ominous about it, it just is.

 

[jmill208]

This is especially true as people tend not to lie to doctors.

Not so sure about that statement.
From a Washington Post article:
But some people resist divulging their secrets. In a 2009 national opinion survey conducted by GE, the Cleveland Clinic and Ochsner Health System, 28 percent of patients said they “sometimes lie to their health care professional or omit facts about their health.” The survey was conducted by telephone with 2,000 patients.
The Hippocratic Oath imposes a code of confidentiality on doctors: “I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know.”
Nonetheless, patients may not share sensitive, potentially stigmatizing health information on topics such as drug and alcohol abuse, mental health problems and reproductive and sexual history. Patients also might fib about less-fraught issues such as following doctor’s orders or sticking to a diet and exercise plan.

 

[aldecaker]

"From your lips to the doctor's ear to the government's database" was one of the many points found objectionable in our recent health care legislation. Some people think any information about themselves should be held private; others appear flattered that the government is so interested in every detail of their private lives. To each their own, I suppose. I personally am one of those insane, benighted cranks who believe in "doctor/patient confidentiality", not "doctor/patient/every employee of the government and whatever corporation the government wants to share your information with confidentiality". Many medical providers are now being bribed by the government to participate in the not-at-all private, easily hackable electronic health records system. You, know, to make your health care better and more efficient. Again, no thank you. I don't need to be linked to a 40-page report of medical history, likely about as accurate as a credit report and which a doctor won't have time to pore over while I am bleeding out from an accident. If anything is that urgent for providers to know, I'll buy a MedicAlert bracelet and take my chances.

 

[shutterbugg]

Pretty sure it someone trying to figure how profitable it is to regulate to the extreme.

That sounds like the most plausible and probable reason anyone has mentioned so far. It's always about money. The governments make enormous revenues off tobacco taxation so they need to keep their finger on the pulse, and who better to take your pulse than your doctor

 

[bigpond]

That's ominous. Doctors sharing patient information with the state.

Genies out. The issue is the sufficiency of the buffer from govt to private.

 

[warren]

I did not write they didn't lie. I wrote that they tended not to. At least with respect to the current ailment.
Also, read the disclaimers on most of the paperwork you have to file and you will notice that you are giving permission to share certain information. Drug and other abuses do not need to be addressed or admitted to. Those abuses will most likely be noticed in various tests, blood, urine, etc which a competent doctor will administer. Doctors are trained to recognize when patients are being less than honest.
If you go to a doctor for a employment physical, lie about recent marijuana use, guess what? You're gonna be found out, your prospective employer notified and you will most likely not be hired.
If you go to a doctor, pay for whatever services you use with your own money you will certainly have a higher expectation of privacy. If your visit is being paid for by the government, an insurance company or employer, guess what? You've most likely agreed that any treatment or finding will be share with whomever paid for such procedure.

 

[aldecaker]

Bingo, Warren! You have hit the nail on the head. If we ever go to "single payer", guess what? Privacy won't even be available to purchase anymore. And before you start poking fun at my tinfoil yarmulke, I am not nearly as concerned about deliberate misuse as I am of careless mistakes leading to serious consequences. No one can deny the financial wreckage left in the wake of underpaid, undertrained, bored cubicle drones entering false information into credit histories. Want to find out the financial history of everyone with a name similar to yours? Get a copy of your credit reports from the big three, because they've added it to yours through sheer incompetence.

 

[ericthered]

My wife recently delivered our second child, and at the 1st pediatrician visit one of the questions was "Are there any loaded guns in the house?". I was able to answer to the negative with a clean conscience because none of my guns were loaded at the time. It did feel a bit intrusive to be asked such a question.

 

[warren]

I wouldn't answer such a question. Must have caught you off guard.

 

[gloucesterman]

HIPPA legislation dictates what "personal" information can be given out without your permission. But bulk data doesn't fall into the category of personal information. Here in Massachusetts there has been some regulation on E cigarettes and the use in public places. Seems they're in the crosshairs.

 

[andrew]

I think the effects of smoking e-cigarettes are going to be alot more severe then people expect.