Time for a new approach to help smokers give up

I RECENTLY completed a masters degree at Keele University in which I looked into smokers who say they wish to quit yet cannot.

It relates to my work as a hypno-psychotherapist, but I have never actively sought out smokers to treat because there appeared to be plenty of free help available to them.

I think the NHS is doomed to a high degree of failure and is acting irresponsibly by offering nicotine gum and patches and pharmaceutical preparations to help people quit.

Gum and patches are sometimes referred to as "therapeutic" nicotine. I would point out that nicotine, far from being therapeutic, is, in fact, a poisonous alkaloid.

"Therapeutic nicotine" is justified by doctors on the grounds that taking it is less harmful than exposing oneself to the effects of tobacco smoke, which additionally contains carcinogens.

But some well-known pharmaceutical preparations have side effects which can include seizures, blinding headaches, or even death.

Clients smoke for reasons important to themselves. It cannot be right to treat people like inanimate objects and in effect say "here take this – this will sort you out". Everyone is different and, as well as having their own needs, will react differently.

My studies showed smokers often justify their smoking habit by self -exempting beliefs. For example "I don't smoke enough to get cancer" and "I can exercise the effects of smoking".

These beliefs fly in the face of reason and cause a state of psychological unease. It is as though the person splits into two parts, one who smokes and one who wants to quit.

A psychotherapist's skill in helping smokers to quit is in helping the two parts to come together to work for the well being of the client. The advantage of working in such a way is the client is treated as an individual, respected as an equal, progresses at their own pace and receives informed psychological support.

As I understand it, the NHS is very target driven. I have spoken to those employed in the medical profession and at primary care trusts, and it seems to be the case that a directive comes from above that they must get, say, 1,200 people in Stoke to give up smoking in the coming month. The support offered to smokers comes from minimally-trained operatives – the NHS is strapped for cash – and as a result maybe 17 per cent of smokers will quit. This figure depends on the follow-up period used as a relapse to smoking is quite common.

I have not dealt with the contentious subject of whether smoking is addictive or not.

It is well-known that users of drugs can give them up without any form of treatment.

The only evidence we have for many drugs being addictive is the word of the "addicts" themselves.

There are social and legal advantages in claiming to be addicted and, in the case of heroin and alcohol, the addicts are often known to have some underlying psychological problems.

I would also say the NHS, by advertising "you will find it hard to quit smoking without NHS help" is promoting a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Suggestions clients will find quitting impossible without the NHS's help will feed into the unconscious and make it almost impossible to give up.

It is bizarre that, in testing drugs, the medical profession takes stringent precautions to eliminate the effects of the "mind" when testing drug potency.

In admitting, therefore, that the "mind" can even override the effects of drugs, why not use it to help smokers quit, instead of relying entirely on pharmaceutical preparations, some of which can be dangerous, especially if misused?

What we need now is a new approach to smoking cessation, not government directives that their method is the only method to help smokers to quit.

We need properly-trained people to help smokers to stop.

A H CAPPER

Chesterton