Years ago, when I was a cub health reporter, I remember the political reporters assuring me that the U.S. Surgeon General's position was a largely ceremonial one that political Washington didn't take too seriously.
This surprised me at the time--shows you what I know about politics. It seemed to me the Surgeon General's report of 1964 about smoking was an incredibly important public health policy. And I think Surgeon General Koop opened the door somewhat in a very closed Reagan Administration on AIDS policy.
Obviously, the reason I'm reminded of this is the floating of Sanjay Gupta's name as possible surgeon general nominee. Full disclosure: I worked with Sanjay at TIME and think he's very nice, an excellent neurosurgeon and obviously very telegenic.
But that's the question: is the SG position all about being a good communicator--in which case, Sanjay is a surprising but logical choice. Or is there more to the Surgeon General's position--like actually setting public health policy? If the latter, then--much as I like Sanjay--I remain unconvinced that there aren't people with better public health credentials to take the job.
I am asking about this on Twitter and in private emails and conversations I have been having with fellow journalists and public health types.
Will let you know if I learn anything good, including any interesting posts--as opposed to the many, many me-too posts that merely repeat what has already been said in the mainstream media.
Also, please point me in the direction of good information about whether the Surgeon General's position is largely ceremonial or not.
Update: See Opposition to Gupta as Surgeon General
No comments:
Post a Comment