Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 05:23, 19 January 2019 (Archiving 10 discussion(s) to Talk:Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes/Archive 1) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 November 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Ecig sanctions

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Royal College of General Practitioners

Royal College of General Practitioners position probably needs adding. --Kim D. Petersen 22:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a statement that says "In April 2016, the Royal College of Physicians released a statement recommending that e-cigarettes..." I do not know what else specifically needs adding. QuackGuru (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Those are different colleges QuackGuru - they are not the same. --Kim D. Petersen 08:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

There is also a statement that says "The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) stated in 2016...". QuackGuru (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I find it remarkable that the statement that you picked from the position paper isn't that e-cigarettes are encouraged by the RCGP as part of a cessation strategy. And instead picked a statement about uncertainty. I wonder if you've considered how your personal views influence your writings here? --Kim D. Petersen 06:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the quotes in isolation actually distort the position of the royal college. There position is "although the long-term safety profile of EC use is still to be evaluated, it is accepted that vaping is an order of magnitude safer than conventional tobacco...Where a patient wants to quit smoking, and has not succeeded with other options, GPs should recommend and support the use of ENDS.". Also, it may be worth using their comments about children Use among children is rare, and in the small number who do use ENDSs, most who currently smoke are ex-smokers...New regulations around age of sale and restrictions on advertising are likely to reduce what is already an issue of low concern.. SPACKlick (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Good call. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages