If anyone needed further evidence that the tide of public opinion has turned firmly against smoking cigarettes, look no further than the mass freak-out that ensued when cancer-survivor Michael Douglas was recently spotted possibly smoking a cigarette. As an incorrigible smoker myself, I understand Michael Douglas's dilemma, and yesterday, I attempted to explain why he would continue possibly smoking despite the cancer. As expected, though, plenty of folks disagreed. Reader Lowrider2003 offers this take:
I am an ENT doctor with 30 years experience diagnosing and treating tongue cancer. It is documented by research that quitting smoking after diagnosing cancer helps decrease the chance of cancer recurring or a new cancer (second primary) occurring. Mr. Douglas chose a young wife and chose to create new young children and now has an obligation to try and be there, especially for his second young family. I think he's selfish and irresponsible not to do everything he can to increase the odds of him being there for his young family.
While I have kind of a hard time believing that anyone who would nickname themselves "Lowrider2003" is a doctor with 30 years of experience, Lowrider2003, I think what's more important here is that the point of this article seems completely to have eluded you. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for you. Selfish? Perhaps, but doctor or not, you're not telling anybody anything they don't already know.