Today in the New York Times there was an editorial about President Bush's appointee for the surgeon general, Dr. James Holsinger (A Nominee’s Abnormal Views).
I first learned about this man from The Colbert Report, which I don't usually watch for informational purposes. Stephen Colbert made a joke about his paper "The Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality", saying how it was written for the United Methodist Church, the "most respected medical institution". Then Colbert told everyone that Bush had just appointed this man to be surgeon general. The audience groaned.
I don't think I need to qualify the groans for you, especially if you read his paper. (My favorite part, which basically sums up his whole argument is: "When the
complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and
diseases may occur.")
What bothers me beyond Bush's initial appointment, is what the New York Times editorial staff suggested to Congress:
"The Bush administration says the white paper reflected the scientific understanding of the time, but it reads like a veneer of science cloaking an aversion to homosexuality. The [Senate Health Committee] should examine whether Dr. Holsinger cherry-picked the literature or represented it objectively."
The editorial goes on to say that if Holsinger has bigoted views towards gays, he shouldn't get the appointment (Really?).
What I find disturbing is that the editorial actually sets up a defense for Holsinger by saying that he could have just been writing in line with the general consensus of the time (1991). That is ridiculous.
It is ridiculous because first, it wasn't the general consensus of the time; and second, even if it was, the consensus was wrong. Would someone who wrote "The Pathophysiology of Blacks" be able to become surgeon general, even if it were written in 1891?
By acknowledging Holsinger as a medical expert who could have been just writing in the popular zeitgiest, the New York Times gives legitimacy to Bush's appointment, which is inherently wrong and should be thrown out. Bush needs to make an appointment with respect for all American citizens.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hey Jeff, diggin post #2. Very well put.
Anyway, regarding the whole surgeon general mess, I think the realization that Bush was censoring his previous Surgeon General really puts this in perspective. From Surgeon General Sees 4-Year Term as Compromised in the NYT, we learn that the Bush administration forced to the Surgeon General to keep silent about issues such as "stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues." And yet, this doesn't get censored?
I guess what I'm getting at is that Bush censored this guy for political reasons, yet this new pick ain't so politically savvy if I do say so myself. I feel like with each new post to fill, his picks get more and more outrageous. They don't even try to hide the disgusting stuff that these people have done.
On an almost related note, you should enjoy this blog post which is response to this cracked out editorial.
So I don't know if I'm supposed to leave comments on this comment on on your blog, I'm new to the blogging world.
Anyways, thanks for reading and linking to that article. The article was very infuriating and I think descriptive of the whole Bush administration. This quote from the article really summed up for me the current administration's stance on a lot of things:
"He [Former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona] described attending a meeting of top officials in which the subject of global warming was discussed. The officials concluded that global warming was a liberal cause and dismissed it, he said."
Washington has become so insulated and its all about the politics now-a-days. They have lost sight of the real issues and are only concerned about inflating power.
Well, I hope DC is still great, even if the people in charge there aren't that super.
I listened to a segment on MPR that asked former Surgeons Genrals opinions--needless to say, they were appalled and made the point that Surgeons General are expected to be scientific experts. To be above politics.
In the past, one you 20 somethings don't remember or weren't even born--The public looked to the Surgeons General for leadership in health promotion. And, we actually got good results! Amazing, when scientists and MDs can actually act like scientists and MDs.
Post a Comment