Conservative attacks on health confirmed

[rivercrow]

If anyone doubted the conservative agenda extended to threatening the health and welfare of citizens, here's proof:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The first U.S. surgeon general appointed by President George W. Bush accused the administration on Tuesday of political interference and muzzling him on key issues like embryonic stem cell research.

"Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried," Dr. Richard Carmona, who served as the nation's top doctor from 2002 until 2006, told a House of Representatives committee.

[htb]

Considering that adult stem cells contribute to about six dozen treatments, and embryonic stem cells to none, it would seem that Carmona was eager to politicize his appointed position.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by htb

Considering that adult stem cells contribute to about six dozen treatments, and embryonic stem cells to none, it would seem that Carmona was eager to politicize his appointed position.

Not that I'm disagreeing... but wouldn't treatments <> research, which is what was said in the quote?

[rivercrow]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

Not that I'm disagreeing... but wouldn't treatments <> research, which is what was said in the quote?

I think so.

Also, Carmona was pressured on issues such as emergency birth control, which are prescribed for the health of patients.

[htb]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

Not that I'm disagreeing... but wouldn't treatments <> research, which is what was said in the quote?

Embryonic stem cells, however, are implicitly and explicitly offered by proponents as a panacea, in spite of volatility and uncertain prospect -- to say nothing of what opponents argue is vivisection. To portray the use of federal dollars for this kind of research as a simple advancement of knowledge is, as I wrote above, specious.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by htb

Embryonic stem cells, however, are implicitly and explicitly offered by proponents as a panacea, in spite of volatility and uncertain prospect -- to say nothing of what opponents argue is vivisection. To portray the use of federal dollars for this kind of research as a simple advancement of knowledge is, as I wrote above, specious.

...as opposed to all other scientific advances, which were from the very get-go surefire prospects?

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by htb

Embryonic stem cells, however, are implicitly and explicitly offered by proponents as a panacea, in spite of volatility and uncertain prospect -- to say nothing of what opponents argue is vivisection. To portray the use of federal dollars for this kind of research as a simple advancement of knowledge is, as I wrote above, specious.

But wasn't the issue here more about stem cell research being dropped due to religious/political concerns, rather than the concerns you're bringing up now?

At least your concerns can be discussed in objective terms ("how much money will be spent? What are the possible outcomes? What is the cost/benefit ratio? How long might it take?")

My perception is that the Bush administration was foot-dragging in order to appease special-interest groups, not really because of realistic concerns involving the viability of the research itself.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

My perception is that the Bush administration was foot-dragging in order to appease special-interest groups, not really because of realistic concerns involving the viability of the research itself.

Just watch his speech. This is a down to earth guy with a unique history who was completely frustrated with the administration and finally decided to let it out. I found it very... I can't say it was unexpected, but I can say that it was dramatic.

YouTube - Hearing on Politicization Surgeon Generals: Carmona Opening

[htb]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

...as opposed to all other scientific advances, which were from the very get-go surefire prospects?

All other scientific advances were not necessarily a) funded by the taxpayer or b) morally controversial.

Generally: my use of the word "politicize" was slightly in jest. Surgeons general are political appointees and, within certain bounds of reason, amenable to the administration that they serve. The generalship, for its part, is more a soap box than a real executive position -- the musings and subsequent resignation of Dr. Jocelyn Elders come to mind. Carmona's complaint is weak and, instead, the former surgeon general appears to have wanted the same latitude as his predecessors.

[Opivy1980]

Originally Posted by htb

All other scientific advances were not necessarily a) funded by the taxpayer or b) morally controversial.

I would have to disagree most scientific advancements have been met with opposition from social conservatives. Here are a few examples:

1. Copernicus Heliocentric view of the solar system
2. Immunization and most early developed medicine
3. Mapping the human genome
4. Evolution
5. The idea of germs causing disease in the first place

I just noticed something it is interesting that many of the advancements in medicine have been the most opposed by social conservatives. Anyone have any thoughts as to why?