At the end of a long day seeing patients, when we should have been exhaused, one of my colleagues and I, both of us Indian, couldn't stop talking about the news that Sanjay Gupta appears to be President-Elect Obama's choice to be Surgeon General. This would make him America's Top Doc, the highest ranking Indian-American in the government, and probably in American history (does Governor Jindal outrank him?). That was enough to make me smile, even at the end of a very long and arduous day.
Gupta, just 39 years of age, is admired by many in the South Asian community and seen as a role model by a lot of young, aspiring Indians. My cousin's daughter, for instance, a freshman in college, has dreams of becoming not just a doctor, but a journalist as well--just like Dr. Gupta. I have no doubt that she isn't the only young South Asian who sees Gupta as an inspiration and a pioneer.
Gupta has been a fixture at CNN, covering a variety of health and humanitarian stories for them both at home and around the world. Inside the clinical world of medicine, he is a Emory University neurosurgeon who received his undergraduate and medical degrees at the University of Michigan.
But does being a high profile physician-journalist qualify you to be Surgeon General? Maybe. But Gupta has at least some political and policy experience--he served in the Clinton adminstration as a White House Fellow, working under Hillary during his tenure there.
As a journalist, Gupta, while having received many accolades for his work, hasn't exactly been the hard-hitting Edward Murrow/Mike Wallace type of reporter. His reports, while interesting, are rarely controversial. Of course, this makes sense for both Gupta and CNN--the last thing either of them want to do is project the stereotype of the haughty, arrogant doctor as their chief medical reporter. Probably his most tension-filled on air momemt came when he got into it with Michael Moore in an interview of Sicko. And since the only person who gets along with Michael Moore is Michael Moore's Ego, we ought to let that moment go. Other than that, I've never really noted him to charge hard with his questions. His is more descriptive reporting--on medical cases and issues. So one has to wonder if Dr. Gupta has the hard nose and sharp elbows it takes to make health policy in the Beltway.
Perhaps that non-controversial persona is exactly what Obama likes--after all, we've had our share of outspoken and abrasive Surgeons General--who can forget Jocelyn Elders singing the praises of teen masturbation in the 1990s? Obama, a pragmatist, seems to have little tolerance for unecessary controversy. Her successor, David Satcher, upset the right wing with his advocacy on sex education in schools. More recently, we haven't heard a peep out of W's Surgeon General (honestly, who is it?). Of course, that's no surprise given the Bushies' complete disregard for scientific evidence in their health policy decisions. Does a President embroiled in two wars and a recessed economy really need cacophony emanating from the SG's office?
If one looks at a job description of Surgeon General, it reads "The Surgeon General serves as America's chief health educator, informing Americans how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury." If that's the case, then Gupta, who's clearly smart and articulate, certainly could a logical and excellent choice, a man with the stature and talent to advcoate for our country's health.
I for one am happy to root for them.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Davis Liu, MD
Judy Berman
Barbara O'Brien
thedrmommy
david edwards
Patrick D Hahn
Salon.com
Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrvrfG0zE6E
In Gupta's thwarting efforts to inform the American public of what our health care system should and CAN be, Sanjay Gupta proves himself unworthy!
I am appalled by Mr. Obama making Gupta this offer!
Mr. Obama! Please! Confine your nominations to HONORABLE people!
I also want to add that it makes sense that someone who has as a high a profile as Gupta would not have accepted the position if Obama wanted it to be as low-profile as whoever holds the position now. (Who is that guy again?) Obviously Gupta enjoys the limelight.
hard to believe Obama would be schizophrenic enough to pick someone who's against his health care agenda to be top doc. so I think it's safe to assume that he's on board because Obama's team vetted him pretty carefully.
As previous posters have point out he's a shill for Big Pharma. And his confrontation with Michael Moore speaks for itself. He's a liar.
He admitted that only that the statistics that he used to belittle "SICKO" were in error. And the fact is that Michael Moore in his movie was correct on every count. There was NOTHING worthy about Gupta's 'exposing' the film, and he still maintains that it (the film) was misleading.
This issue, public health, is so important that every responsible citizen is urged to watch it. Then watch Gupta and Moore on the YouTube video and make the unavoidable conclusion that Gupta was shilling for the PharmaCo's in opposition to any factual information about how the people of this country are continuing to be shafted by these Gupta ventriloquists.
Obama! Withdraw Gupta's name!
I had to sleep on this before posting a reply. First of all, I think that Dr. Gupta is a wonderful choice for Surgeon General.
Second, facial transplants are not ready for prime time, and are definitely not going to be available on demand for a long time, or to anyone who wants one.
As with any transplant, the autoimmune system has to be suppressed in order to help prevent rejection of the foreign tissue. Rejection could occur, anyway, leaving even more catastrophic facial damage.
In that case, was the cosmetic result worth permanently inducing the equivalent of AIDS, risking even more damage, and perhaps causing death?
No.
Doctors are constantly telling patients "You're not getting that". Yep. Doctors are about that crass. They don't always have the time to get decrassified, but they're passionate about not doing more harm than good to a patient. I know this well, and frequently have to forgive the crassity.
Cheers to Dr. Gupta.
Just for the record, I never said this was or wasn't the case. I was simply repeating a theory I saw postulated on television last night that made sense to me. (FYI--I was Olbermann, not Maddow.) http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein
I personally don't know enough about Gupta to say for myself whether I think he would be a good surgeon general or not, or whether I would ultimately agree with his policy, or not.
What Dr. Gupta will be doing is largely what he does on CNN already -- identify critical topics in healthcare and educate the public about them so that people can make healthier choices. I can understand a little of the discomfort in the idea of a guy who's basically a celebrity being given the "top doc" post, because celebrity tends to be associated with banality. But I think Gupta isn't the worst choice out there. He does have the necessary communication skills to do the core of the job description effectively. The fact that most of us can identify Dr. Gupta faster than the current Surgeon General should tell you something right there.
You're joking, right?
Most of us can identify George W. Bush faster than the current winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics. But ... huh ... huh?
Show of hands, who wants to go to Cuba to a regular persons hospital for their next major surgery?
As for Gupta -- I think Blake & Dr. Dach are on to something.
can you detail Gupta's ties to pharma? I've been hearing about it, but I have yet to see any clear link.
thanks
thanks for the info. I took a look at it and I'm a bit skeptical of the accusation--if you look at the transcript from American morning, Gupta was reporting on a study of two drugs lipitor and another statin. The quote you cite is in response to a question Soledad O'Brien asked him about whether a person who is otherwise healthy should consider taking not Lipitor specifically, but rather, "any of them?" as she says. I don't feel he was pushing Lipitor in that report, other than reporting on the study's results. Also, if Gupta is reporting on specific drugs in a newsworthy way, it's hard for me to accept the accusation that he's promoting them on behalf of the drug companies. Gupta ought to come out and say whether he has any ties to drug companies, however, just to clarify this.
Regarding Accenthealth, you'll see in the post CNN's response--Gupta has no relationship with the show's sponsors and CNN maintains full editorial control, for what that's worth.
As someone who's written about drugs and vaccines myself, it's hard not to tread the line, as the post you linked me to suggests. But it's the difference between newsworthy content and a shameless plug. I don't think Gupta has crossed the line in the example you provide.
But like I said, if Gupta wants to come clean, he should disclose any of his ties, strong or weak--something all doctors in the public eye should do.
Dr. Dach wrote: "Journalists are ethically bound NOT TO MAKE MONEY from the people or companies mentioned in their journalism. This obviously taints the journalism, and transforms it into an info-mercial."
That's not quite right, or even possible. Any journalistic entity (even most that are non-profit) lets companies advertise that they are, or have, or likely will report about. The term "underwritten" is used pretty loosely when an advertiser wants a more prominent sponsorship for particular content (as they do here) but it's essentially signaling that these companies are advertising -- which is the way every major media company in the world makes money.
I'm not saying it isn't worth knowing about -- and I do think it's a very good thing that these ties are transparent. But using this same logic would reduce all media -- from the New York Times to Salon; from NPR to Talking Points Memo -- essentially to an info-mercial. I also do believe CNN when the say Gupta in no way profited directly from any of this -- not even the loosest media company is that crazy.
I agree wtih you--I wasn't trying to shame Elders or Satcher--my point was contrast their more controversial opinions and stances with those that Gupta may or may not take