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

Pervasive Abusive Silence

Pervasive Abusive Silence

Stephen Roberson says, "it would have been far better if [the surgeons
general] had shown the courage of their convictions while still in their posts
[...] the American people have a right to expect people in positions of
authority to speak the truth, even if these individuals have to risk
professional setbacks by doing so." ("The unhealthy silence of our surgeons
general," Letter, Boston Globe, July 13, 2007)
Why is this paradigm limited to surgeons general? Much of the cynicism
among voters derives from the failure of all public officials to reveal
wrongdoing by their colleagues for fear of losing their jobs. Fooling
journalists is the goal not keeping the public informed.
Six months after being elected the new Governor, the new Attorney General
and the Middlesex District Attorney remain silent about any wrongdoing by the
many local and state officials under their jurisdiction. Are they unaware of the
misconduct? If aware and keeping silent they have become part of the problem
that existed before they were elected. Business as usual is the dominant
paradigm in Massachusetts. Why is the Globe silent too?

Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM

The unhealthy silence of our surgeons general
Letter
Boston Globe
July 13, 2007

WHILE IT is heartening to hear three former surgeons general -- Richard Carmona,
C. Everett Koop, and David Satcher -- finally speaking out about having been
censored by their respective administration officials, it would have been far
better if they had shown the courage of their convictions while still in their
posts (Ex-surgeon general accuses Bush officials of censorship," Page A2, July
11).

What would they have lost by speaking up when it mattered, over the president's
objections if necessary? Their jobs?

Whether we're listening to the secretary of state, the head of the CIA, or the
surgeon general, the American people have a right to expect people in positions
of authority to speak the truth, even if these individuals have to risk
professional setbacks by doing so. A private in the US Army risks more than that
every day; is it right that we expect so much less from our senior government
officials?

STEPHEN J. ROBERSON
Holliston