Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Does smoking kill? A study of death certification and smoking
  1. Ian Proctor1,
  2. Vijay Sharma1,2,
  3. Mohammad KhoshZaban1,
  4. Alison Winstanley1
  1. 1Department of Pathology, University College London, London, UK
  2. 2BMJ Evidence Centre, BMJ Group, BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ian Proctor, Department of Pathology, University College London, 3rd Floor Rockefeller Building, University Street, London WC1E 6JJ, UK; ian.proctor{at}nhs.net

Abstract

Aim To assess how frequently smoking is cited as a cause of death (COD) on death certificates.

Methods A retrospective study of 2128 death certificates and 236 postmortem reports issued at a large teaching hospital between 2003 and 2009.

Results Smoking was identified as the underlying COD on only 2 (0.1%) death certificates and included in part II of the death certificate on 10 (0.5%). The two death certificates citing smoking as the underlying COD were in cases of lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The study included 279 deaths in which these diagnoses were cited on the death certificate and in the majority of these cases the deceased was a smoker or ex-smoker. A review of postmortem reports from the same period failed to identify a single case in which the pathologist cited smoking as causing or contributing to death. In marked contrast to smoking, 57.4% (vs 0.5%) of death certificates, which included diagnoses linked to alcohol use, cited alcohol in part I of the death certificate.

Conclusion This study demonstrates that smoking is rarely cited on death certificates, even in cases where the causal link with smoking is very strong. There are many reasons why smoking is not cited on death certificates. One frequently cited reason is the reluctance of doctors to stigmatise the deceased. Interestingly, such reluctance did not extend to citing alcohol as a COD. By not recording smoking on death certificates doctors are failing to gather important epidemiological and pathological data.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval The study was an audit of clinical practice and did not require ethical approval.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.