Second Hand Smoke is Child Abuse - Literature review Example

Second Hand Smoke is Child Abuse Smoking is now widely regarded as an activity that can be associated with numerous health risks, not only for the individual engaging in the activity, but also for those who are in the immediate vicinity and thus must partake of what has been termed ‘second-hand smoke.’ For these reasons, it has been determined in a variety of different venues and states, that smoking in public and public-use places, such as libraries and government offices, restaurants and shopping malls, should be banned. Following this logic, it seems reasonable that smoking should be banned in households which children inhabit. In a society where bruising a child is considered abuse surely exposing kids to life-threatening maladies such as lung disease and emphysema should be considered abuse by law. Smokers and advocates for smokers such as tobacco companies argue this is an unreasonable limitation on their freedoms, restricting their right to enjoy a relaxing smoke after dinner in a bar or restaurant or while in their own home. Secondhand smoke is defined as that smoke that an individual inhales as a result of someone else’s smoking nearby. While some argue that the danger from this smoke is minimal, others have identified several properties of secondhand smoke that make it clear this form of smoke is more potent and therefore more dangerous than the smoke the smoker is inhaling into his or her lungs. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992), smoke inhaled through the filter of a cigarette has only half of the tar and nicotine that can be found in a similar sized cloud of secondhand smoke. Despite their non-smoking status, this same report indicates that approximately “3,000 non-smokers a year die from lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke” and another “37,000 non-smokers a year die from heart disease attributed to secondhand smoke” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992). These numbers are supported by other evidence of the harmful effects of secondhand smoke such as the study conducted by Fontham et al (1994) in which it was shown that non-smoking women married to heavy smokers had twice the risk of non-smoking women married to non-smokers to develop lung cancer. Another study conducted on workers who were often exposed to repeated and extended exposure to secondhand smoke, such as bartenders and waitresses, also demonstrated a 25-75 percent greater risk of lung cancer, with the chances becoming increasingly likely with the number of years employed in such environments (Pisani et al, 2001). Children exposed to high levels of secondhand smoke are susceptible to greater instances of bronchitis, pneumonia and other respiratory infections, chronic ear infections and asthma (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992). It has already been demonstrated through the evidence brought forward by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that children often suffer serious harm as the result of being exposed to secondhand smoke (Larson, 2003). As a consequence of their actions in lighting up a cigarette in a public space, knowing the consequences of secondhand smoke and infringing on others’ rights to breathe clean air, smokers are engaging in activity that has been identified as criminal. Under federal law, for example, child abuse and neglect is defined as “any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitations; or, an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm” (CAPTA, 2003: §5106g). Although smoking has not yet become recognized as constituting criminal rights infringement upon nonsmoking neighbors, officemates and children, it is clear that the issue of smoking indoors with children present should be illegal. By definition, it already is. Congress gave a formal definition to neglect and stipulated actions states must take so that children would be protected from abuses when it ratified the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act in 1974. That federally mandated legal definition of neglect is as follows: “The physical and mental injury, sexual abuse, neglected treatment or maltreatment of a child under age 18 by a person who is responsible for the child’s welfare under circumstances which indicate the child’s health and welfare is harmed and threatened thereby, as determined in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare” (“Child Protection Act”, 1974). The legal definition stipulates that only parents, legal guardians or caregivers can perpetrate child neglect. The same type of abuses committed by any other individual whether relative, friend or stranger is considered an assault by legal definition unless the child is being cared for by that relative or friend at the request of the legal guardian. In addition, this Act includes in its definition both physical neglect and mental harm. A clear definition of neglect has been the subject of much debate since the 1974 Act was signed into law and will likely continue for a long time to come because every alleged neglect situation is different and societal standards of decency are constantly in a mode of adjustment. Another aspect of the debate is to what extent the government should be allowed to intervene in the private family lives of American families. Some suggest that the government should narrowly define neglect leaving no room for state bureaucrats to make personal judgment calls and that only under clearly defined circumstances should the government be allowed to intervene in family concerns. Those narrow definitions being if the child has observable wounds that resulted from the actions of a parent or caregiver. Others, however, invite government involvement and advocate flexibility for child welfare workers because of the many variables that are present in neglect situations. These individuals feel that because children can be seriously harmed and/or emotionally scarred for a lifetime by neglect, this more than justifies outside intervention (Costin et al, 1997). Children do not always suffer negative lifetime effects as a result of neglect. The type of neglect (duration, severity and frequency), child’s age, relationship with parents and psychological/emotional make-up all vary extensively from case to case. Children possess varying abilities to deal with neglect. Some are exceedingly resilient and even thrive after experiencing neglect. Children who are generally optimistic, have a sense of humor, are independent in nature, have a high intellect and high level of self esteem have a better chance to overcome negative experiences. Other factors such as access to a supportive adult, the stability of the surrounding community and degree of health care access are described ‘protective factors’ that can be helpful in alleviating long-term adverse consequences of child neglect (Thomlison, 1997). This is all well and good when describing certain levels of physical and mental neglect but breathing in second-hand smoke cannot be overcome no matter the ‘general optimistic outlook’ of the child. The damage is permanent. Exposing kids to cigarette smoke is more harmful than most types of what is commonly considered child abuse. Kids can heal from most wounds whether psychological or physical but no one recovers from lung cancer. Kids who live in households where one or both of the parents smoke are more likely to smoke themselves. Though smoking parents may warn their kids about the harms of cigarettes, this lecture is seldom taken seriously. Smokers not only force their kids to smoke as well exposing them to heart and lung disease but these kids are more likely to smoke themselves. The least society could do is to enact laws protecting kids from second-hand smoke. Not much can be done about kids learning to smoke from their parents unless smoking is banned altogether but that scenario seems unlikely. Innocent children who seldom question their parent’s authority or actions are unlikely to speak out for themselves though surely they know harm is being done to them. If this weren’t enough, cigarette companies entice children and teens with advertising directed at these innocents. For example, RJR advertising vice president C.A. Tucker, in a 1974 presentation to the board of directors, referred to “the growing importance of the young adult in the cigarette market,” defined as the 14 to 24 age group, saying they “represent tomorrow’s cigarette business” (Lochhead 1998). Tucker said those RJR competitors’ Marlboro and Kool brands enjoyed “strong young adult franchises and high cigarette brand loyalties” (Lochhead 1998). Let’s not forget about the Marlboro Man who enticed an untold number of kids to smoke. Kids have enough pressure to smoke, from advertisements, their parent’s example and peers. The least society can do for them is to label forcing second-hand smoke on them what it is, child abuse. It is true that the nonsmokers are infringing upon the rights and freedoms of the smokers in demanding that they not smoke in public places, but it is equally true that the smokers are infringing upon the rights and freedoms of the nonsmokers by insisting that public places be filled with deadly, cancer-causing toxins. Communities across the country are banning smoking in public places. Let’s go the next logical step and ban it from homes of children. Ironic, we enact seatbelt laws for kids but do not protect them from common toxic substances. Works Cited “Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act.” Public Law 93-247, 42 U.S.C. §5101 (1974), sec. 3. Costin, L.B., Karger, H.J., and Stoesz, D. “The politics of child abuse in America.” New York: Oxford University Press. (1996). Fontham, E.T.; Correa, P.; Reynolds, P; Wu-Williams, A.; Buffler, P.A.; Greenberg, R.S.; Chen, V.W.; Alterman, T.; Boyd, P.; Austin, D.F.; et al. “Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Nonsmoking Women: A Multicenter Study.” Journal of the American Medical Association. Vol. 271, (1994), pp. 1752-1759. Larson, Aaron. “Assault and Battery.” Expert Law. (October 2003). March 3, 2009 Lochhead, Carolyn. “Joe Camel Designed to Lure Teens: Internal Papers Reveal Cigarette-Maker’s Intent.” S.F. Chronicle Washington Bureau. (January 15 1998). Pisani, Paola; Bray, Freddie & Parkin, Maxwell. “Estimates of the World-Wide Prevalence of Cancer for 25 Sites in the Adult Population.” International Journal of Cancer. Vol. 93, (2001). Thomlison, B. “Risk and protective factors in child maltreatment.” Risk and resilience in childhood: An ecological perspective. M. W. Fraser (Ed.). Washington, DC: NASW Press. (1997). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking.” Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1992). Read More