The controversy surrounding the potential pick continues.
Maggie Mahar has some real concerns about Dr. Gupta’s history, including his propensity to support the products and treatments he reports on. With lobbyists having the potential to obstruct health reform every step of the way, the Surgeon General should “serve the interests of patients-ahead of the interests of those who profit from our bloated $2.3 trillion health care system.”
She points out, for instance, that Dr. Gupta dismissed the dangers of Vioxx, and defended Merck, prior to the medication being taken off the market.
Will he have the backbone to stand up against the special interests?
Related posts:
- Sanjay Gupta for Surgeon General, is he qualified?
- Sanjay Gupta and his spiral finger fracture
- Inside the operating room with Sanjay Gupta, America’s most famous neurosurgeon
- Are the antivaccinationists getting to Sanjay Gupta?
- Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Celebrity superdoc
- Sanjay Gupta on Anna Nicole Smith
- Gupta on the TB scare
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 3 comments }
The Vioxx case was bogus from start to finish.
The better question is whether he can stand up to the out of control left wing ideologues, and clinical care haters in the administration and in the blogosphere.
the post assumes that Gupta was wrong to defend Vioxx …
This questions assumes that it’s relevant to the role of Surgeon General. Which it isn’t. Maggie can raise such issues about handing Dr. Gupta a position in the new Office of Health Reform. But I doubt even a high profile Surgeon General like Dr. Gupta will force the evolution of the office in such a way that it ever touches on the issue of pharmaceutical and manufacturer lobbying in health care.
A question on whether a Surgeon General can “stand up to the lobbyists” is irrelevant. The role of Surgeon General doesn’t even require it to be answered.
Also Maggies comment “assumes that Gupta was wrong to defend Vioxx.”
Comments on this entry are closed.