Obama's Pick For Surgeon General Scrutinized

"Cox said that Murthy’s stance on gun control, which the physician has called an issue of public health, would taint his ability to act only on empirical evidence and to examine health issues relevant to firearm owners." Empirical evidence shows that having more guns makes the society safer, i.e., less violence. And Murthy's argument is what? See, e.g., John R. Lott's book of empirical evidence, More Guns, Less Crime. But a bioethicist, (what are the requirements to call oneself a bioethicist?) says, “The effort to block him [Murthy] by the NRA is absurd on its face, has no merit, is utterly politics, and is inimical to the health of all Americans,” Caplan said in an interview. “It’s ridiculous. It’s absurd." Those are rational, impersonal, arguments based on empirical evidence. NOT!!! "According to Caplan, however, the fierce opposition to gun control does not necessarily reflect the views of the broader American population." Oh? And how does the bioethicist know that? It may be that the bioethical conclusion is directly contrary to reality, to empirical evidence. Again what makes a bioethicist? Most importantly it was Chancellor Adolf Hitler in Germany whose administration medicalized social problems. Is that what bioethicists do? No facts, just declarations about medicine and public health. Who dares oppose that? Who could be so uncool? So unhip?

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/3/22/murthy-nra-senate-opposition/

Amid Opposition, White House 'Recalibrating' Approach for Harvard-Affiliated Surgeon General Nominee
By ALEXANDER H. PATEL

Harvard CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
March 22, 2014