Healthcare might have bigger problems right now than the planet's climate crisis, but clinicians should recognize that the medical decisions they make today will affect the world tomorrow.
And, if small changes a physician can make could "dramatically cut hospitals' greenhouse emissions" without diminishing patient health outcomes, why wouldn't they? That's the question posed in a June 6 Washington Post opinion article authored by columnist Leana Wen, MD.
Stop using the anesthetic gas desflurane, she wrote, noting the "alternatives are clinically equivalent, less costly and also have a small fraction of desflurane's global warming potential."
Scotland banned the use of desflurane in April — the first country to do so.
Approximately 144 million metered dose inhalers, prescribed for respiratory diseases including asthma, are being used in the United States right now — the "equivalent of driving half a million cars" — because MDIs contain hydrofluorocarbon propellants which are "potent greenhouse gasses," Dr. Wen said.
In Sweden, patients receive prescriptions for dry powder inhalers, which treat the respiratory conditions using a lower-carbon alternative.
"Though MDIs constitute 75 percent of inhaler prescriptions in the United States, they are now only 13 percent of Sweden's," she said, adding, "Sweden produces superior clinical outcomes to the United States."
Additionally, the National Health Service in Britain made a similar move to reduce MDI use in an effort to improve patient outcomes and reduce emissions.
"This is the key point: There doesn't need to be a trade-off between [the] health of the patient and the health of the planet. Rather, understanding the environmental cost of treatment options can lead to more thoughtful decisions that enhance patient care in the short term and reduce longer-term environmental consequences," Dr. Wen said.
Read the entire opinion article here.