Today’s Politico.Com reports Rep. John Conyers has come out publicly against the nomination of Sanjay Gupta for US Surgeon General. Conyers’ objections come on the heels of revelations that Gupta has been less than forthcoming about his relationships with pharmaceutical and medical firms.
There’s no question Gupta would bring a fresh face and dynamic persona to the US Public Health Service. He’d also help the new Administration’s efforts to drive changes in the health system. But he has little managerial experience and less in the public health sector. Gupta’s resume contains no evidence of any managerial or leadership experience, much less a track record leading a large organization. He has also been forced to retract several statements he made in a much-publicized televised brawl with Michael Moore. This last, coupled with the links to big medicine, has led to some expressing concerns about his objectivity.
Gary Schwitzer writing in 2007 in HealthNewsReview.com noted Gupta promoted the use of medical screening tools, tools that could lead to increased use of drugs. Schwitzer, a journalism professor, has criticized Gupta’s reporting as misleading and incomplete at other times as well. This isn’t an issue in and of itself, but what is troubling is the failure on the part of Gupta or CNN to disclose his relationships with potential beneficiaries of his reporting.
I’m not as concerned about Gupta’s relationships with the same industry the administration will be working to reform (although I’m plenty worried about that) than I am about a possible repeat of the Brownie situation. As the leader of the US Public Health Service, Gupta would play an important role in the nation’s response to a SARS outbreak, biological weapon attack, radioactive event, epidemic or major natural disaster. From my reading of the doctor’s resume, his qualifications to address such an event appear slim.
Jan
9
This choice is like what is going on in NYS, with the possible appointment of Caroline Kennedy as a State Senator. Big, famous name, with very, very little qualifications to do the very important job.
Ms Kennedy is a Harvard educated attorney, an published author (several scholarly works in addition to the fluff books), and active philanthropist. (Just because you don’t get a paycheck, doesn’t mean it’s not ‘qualifications’.) By the way, George, it’s US Senator, not State Senator. Actually, Senator Clinton came to the job without other elected experience.
Thank you for the correction Ann. True, Clinton had no true elected experience. Just as Kennedy has none. As far as her writing scholarly works and being a “philanthropist”, that does not make one qualified to become a US Senator. The issue is still the fact that NY State has many qualified candidates WITH elected experience, fine candidates, such as AG Andrew Cuomo and Rep. Carolyn Maloney, among others, all candidates who have been active in NYS politics AND have been active participants in past elections, politics and voting.
George, I’m fairly neutral on the Kennedy candidacy, but permit me to play devil’s advocate for a moment and note that George W. Bush brought many “experienced hands” into his administration — Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. — so much so that his cabinet was hailed early on as a “dream team.” And we see how well that worked out. Experience is a virtue in many places, but in Washington, it seems more of a vice in that the longer one spends there, the less reliable a public servant one becomes. I’d sacrifice a little relevant experience in someone’s resume for an intelligent, competent, committed individual who could bring a fresh — even disruptive or subversive — view to the position.
That said, I am mildly supportive of Dr. Gupta because while his resume may be a bit thin on the administrative demands of the job, I would think those duties could be delegated to technocrats and career officers under his supervision without too much fuss.
I am surmising from the very fact that he was selected by Pres.-elect Obama that the administration intends to give the position a more public and citizen-focused role. Joe is right to point out that things like a SARS outbreak, biological weapon attack, radioactive event, epidemic or major natural disaster would fall under the Surgeon General’s purview. But think how much better the grass-roots response to such an event might be if a charismatic leader could inspire an all-hands-on-deck response. Brownie never had that.