nos.nl
Netherlands Promotes Climate-Conscious Prescribing for Asthma Inhalers
In the Netherlands, the high use of propellant-based inhalers for asthma treatment—with a climate impact equivalent to driving 320 km per inhaler—is prompting a new guideline for environmentally conscious prescribing; this aims to help the 55% of 1.5 million patients currently using these inhalers to switch to less harmful alternatives.
- What is the environmental impact of propellant-based inhalers in the Netherlands, and what actions are being taken to mitigate it?
- In the Netherlands, 55% of the 1.5 million asthma patients use propellant-based inhalers, although only 15-20% require them. These inhalers have a significant environmental impact; one inhaler's greenhouse effect equals 320 km of car travel. A new guideline promotes climate-conscious prescribing to encourage safer alternatives.
- What are the challenges in transitioning asthma patients from propellant-based inhalers to powder inhalers, and how are these challenges addressed?
- The high use of propellant inhalers contributes to the Netherlands' 7% healthcare sector contribution to national greenhouse gas emissions. The propellants are PFAS, raising environmental concerns despite being quickly excreted. The transition to powder inhalers is hampered by patients' inability to inhale forcefully, especially children and the elderly.
- What are the long-term environmental and health implications of the PFAS present in propellant-based inhalers, and what further research is needed?
- Increased awareness among Dutch doctors about the environmental impact of propellant inhalers is leading to a shift towards climate-conscious prescribing. However, concerns remain regarding the formation of TFA, a type of PFAS, after exhalation, which accumulates in water sources and poses health risks. Future research should focus on mitigating the environmental impact of inhaled PFAS.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the issue primarily from the perspective of environmental concern, highlighting the significant greenhouse gas emissions from HFA inhalers. While acknowledging patient needs, the emphasis is on the environmental consequences and the need for change, potentially leading readers to prioritize environmental concerns over individual health considerations. The headline is missing but the introduction sets this tone.
Language Bias
The article uses emotionally charged language such as "supervervuilende puf" (super polluting puff) which is not objective. While aiming to raise awareness, this language could be considered alarmist and might disproportionately affect reader perception. More neutral terminology like "inhalers with high environmental impact" would be more appropriate. The use of terms like "schadelijk" (harmful) and "vervelende, zorgelijke stof" (annoying, worrying substance) also skew the tone toward negativity.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the environmental impact of inhalers but omits discussion of the potential health consequences of switching to alternative inhalers for some patients. While acknowledging that not all patients can switch, a balanced discussion of the trade-offs between environmental impact and potential health risks would improve the article.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by primarily focusing on the choice between HFA inhalers and powder inhalers, without exploring other potential alternatives or solutions to reduce the environmental impact of asthma treatment. The implication is that these are the only two options, which is an oversimplification.
Gender Bias
The article features a relatively balanced representation of genders among the experts quoted (male and female doctors). However, the inclusion of a patient's emotional response adds a personal touch, but care should be taken to avoid perpetuating gender stereotypes in such anecdotal inclusions. More attention to gender representation among long-term patients quoted would improve the analysis.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the significant environmental impact of propellant-based inhalers used by lung patients, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. Initiatives to promote the use of climate-friendly alternatives, such as powder inhalers, are underway, aiming to reduce the carbon footprint of healthcare. The awareness campaign among doctors and patients shows a positive step toward mitigating climate change within the healthcare sector. The fact that the propellant gases are a type of PFAS, contributing to environmental pollution, further strengthens this connection.