|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Saturday, April 12, 2003In all, 366 people responded to the question posed on bmj.com: How much space should the BMJ devote to political issues? In comparison with current coverage, 45% wanted more or much more coverage, 31% the same, and 22% less or much less. Perhaps that’s one of the consequences of socialized medicine - medicine becomes hopelessly politicized. Not surprisingly, all of their affirmative letters to the editor were from physicians in public health. (Who, I must say, have a disturbing tendency to lean socialist politically worldwide.) But the most interesting of all the letters was this one, which puts forth the theory that by publishing articles on bioterrorism, medical journals unwittingly helped promote the war, a la Lenin’s “useful idiots”: I believe that most people in the United States and United Kingdom would have preferred not to launch a military attack on the people in Iraq. To persuade them to do so, they need to believe that they are being attacked. Medical journals have (unwittingly) had an important propaganda role in persuading the public that it is being attacked. He must have missed the news about the 3,000 dead in New York and Washington, D.C., not to mention the anthrax mailings, or the ricin found in his own native England. Staggering. The editors have taken the results of their survey to heart, and published several articles on the morality of war this issue. (Message: all war is bad, no war is just.) Perhaps the most astonishing is the “review” by an Oregon psychiatrist who claims to have identified a "9/11 judgment impairment" in physicians [Didn’t “9/11” top the BMJ’s list of words that should be banned? -ed. Yes, but they make exceptions if it’s used to sneer.] : Good judgment relies on curiosity fostered by reflection. Certainly, fearful times are not conducive to reflection. We also know that the first casualty of war is truth, and without truth reflection is merely worry and fantasy - anything but good judgment. Judgment is a mental process demanding broad thinking, including reflection. Of itself, reflection does not, nor should it, lead to action. Rather reflection opens the mind to the free flow of curiosity, needed for exploring possibilities. Reflection produces questions that lead to appropriate action. Who can deny that an enhanced capacity to reflect is a necessary skill of a thinking doctor? And how does that relate to 9/11? Does it impair our ability to make medical judgments? No. It impairs our moral judgment: Undoubtedly doctors will discharge their duties in times of war. However, as community leaders our critical thinking establishes the nation's standards of health and, to a degree, our morality. Therefore, doctors' constructive curiosity must be preserved, not left until the war is over. We may be able to set the health standards for our nation, but moral standards? We are but poor mortals, not gods, nor saints, nor prophets. Of course, what he’s really saying is that any physician who thinks this war a just war (i.e. any physician who doesn’t share his anti-war opinion) is suffering from impaired moral judgment. Goodness. You have to wonder how much success a man of such rigid thinking could possibly ever had as a psychiatrist. But the broader question is why in the hell would the BMJ print such a piece of drivel? The answer, sadly, is that it suits their political agenda. Which raises yet a broader question - will the journal ever print any article that runs contrary to their political views? We may just be witnessing the beginning of the end of one of the world’s best medical journals. posted by Sydney on 4/12/2003 08:41:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
