Jokes aside, I don't really see the problem with Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon General. He's a neurosurgeon with an MD from U Michigan, and was an assistant professor of neurosurgery at Emory. I've never watched much of him on CNN, but he seems to be pretty effective at conveying public health information to laypeople, which is basically the job description of the Surgeon General.
Apparently a number of folks are up in arms about Gupta's appointment because he criticized Michael Moore for "fudging facts" in Sicko. After that criticism, Gupta debated Moore on Larry King Live, and later corrected a misstatement he made during that debate. I haven't seen Sicko or the debate, but Moore has been widely criticized for sloppy fact-checking, so I hardly think that this is a disqualification.
Others have criticized Gupta as a celebrity and for not being "at the top of his field," but the Surgeon General isn't a prize for being the nation's best doctor- in fact, I'd rather that the very best doctors stay in hospitals and their practices. The job of the Surgeon General is largely a symbolic one- to convince people to take measures that will increase their health and the public health. This is basically what Gupta's been doing on CNN, arguably more effectively than the last couple Surgeons General (I'll buy you a beer if you can tell me who the current one is without looking it up). If Gupta's celebrity gets people to pay more attention to the government's exhortations to eat better, exercise more, not lick lead paint, etc., then this seems like a good choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment