Talk:Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada

Creation of a "Controversy" Section, to Include Their Opposition to e-cigarettes

http://www.heartandstroke.com/site/c.ikIQLcMWJtE/b.9207931/k.D09C/Heart_and_Stroke_Foundation_Ecigarettes_in_Canada.htm

Their website, their rhetoric and their "authority" is being used to create FUD and undermine legitimate efforts to make the Wikipedia article on e-cigarettes an accurate and balanced article that presents factual information to the reader. Strikes me as very, very odd that an organization that claims to be against "Heart" (disease) and "Strokes" would:

CANADIAN SOLUTIONS: The Heart and Stroke Foundation recommends that federal, provincial and municipal governments immediately adopt the following policies, for all e-cigarettes where jurisdictionally appropriate:

Prohibit use of e-cigarettes in public spaces and workplaces where smoking is banned by law. Prohibit e-cigarette sales in locations where tobacco sales are banned. Prohibit e-cigarette sales to minors (18 or 19 years of age, depending on the minimum tobacco age in the province) as well as banning use of e-cigarettes on elementary and secondary school property. Strictly regulate e-cigarette advertising and promotion, including prohibiting celebrity and lifestyle marketing, unsubstantiated health claims, retail promotion, youth targeted marketing and the co-branding of e-cigarettes with conventional cigarette brands. Regulate the product, including restricting flavours attractive to youth, and requiring that e-cigarettes be visually distinct from regular cigarettes. The latter is important in order to prevent renormalization and confusion with tobacco cigarettes among youth. In particular, e-cigarettes should not include filters, glowing tips or be the same colour/shape/dimensions as a traditional tobacco cigarette. Should Health Canada approve the use of e-cigarettes with nicotine, it should then have a regulatory framework that includes approval of products on a case by case basis, and development of labelling requirements. Restrict access by only allowing via prescription at the outset. Actively enforce the existing ban on e-cigarettes with nicotine to prevent illegal/non-approved nicotine based e-cigarette products from being available in Canada. The federal government, through Health Canada should apply penalties to retailers who supply illegal products and supplies to the Canadian market and deter others from making such products available. Dedicate research funding to enable a deeper understanding of the usage, potential benefits of e-cigarettes as a cessation device as well as their possible risks, including safety, gateway to addiction potential and renormalization.

... While at the same time ask for "Donations" on their website. That seems very "Controversial" to me, that an organization that claims to be against the diseases caused by smoking would be in favor out out-lawing and regulating out of existence an alternative that has none of the decades-long history of health effects that tobacco has. But they still want "donations", and they want to ban the cure for heart disease and strokes. But they want "donations", while they make the cure against the law. And don't forget the "donations" part. Very "Controversial", if you ask me. Given the obviously biased and self-serving (that "donations" part again) nature of the website, I'd be interested in declaring it to be a "not reliable" source and any use of it in the citations on the article for e-cigarettes be excluded for that reason.Jonny Quick (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Also there is some controversy around a situation where their "Health Check Label" was used on Gummi Bear candy, which is almost 100% sugar.https://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine-on/doctor-takes-heart-stroke-foundation-task-over-health-172850715.html

A mention of how "6 figure salaries are the norm" in an article:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/six-figure-salaries-the-norm-at-top-charities/article4352708/

Some "resistance" to the charity being audited:http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011/11/15/audit_of_charities_encounters_resistance.html

An allegation that a campaign named "Make Death Wait" has "Gone Too Far": http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2012/01/does-heart-and-strokes-make-death-wait-campaign-go-too-far.html

I'm sure there's more to be found. The page looks rather sparse, so there's plenty of room.Jonny Quick (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleting "Allocation of Donations" Section

Because you can't call a charitable organization's claim of what they do with the money people give them as "reliable".Jonny Quick (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Move Suggestion

They changed their name (although not clear if just branding or actual legal name change) in 2016 to Heart & Stroke (stylized as Heart&Stroke). Should there be a name change? Would what do others thing?

1. No
2. Yes to "Heart and Stroke"
3. Yes to "Heart & Stroke"
4. Yes to "Heart&Stroke"

CT55555 (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)