The last word on the Medlogs "controversy"

Posted on by

Jacob has taken a stand on this issue on his own weblog:

“I would argue that politics is often (always?) relevant to healthcare, and that separating science from politics is more of a challenge than most of us will ever admit. The whole point of weblogs is to learn from each other. If you disagree with someone – well then that is great. Disagree and make your point well so that we can all learn from the discussion.”

With this, he lays to rest the anonymous complainer’s campaign to oust me from Medlogs syndication. Of course, I heartily agree, even though I did not think the complaint was ever really about the relevance of politics to medical practice but rather an attack on my particular political ‘rants’.

If I had fallen for anon.’s ‘troll’ anymore than I did, had I wanted to devote even more indignant energy to my response than I already had, it would have been along exactly the same lines. I would have written about how ridiculous it is to try to separate politics, even very specific anti-Bush and antiwar rhetoric, from healthcare concerns. It is axiomatic that the practice of medicine is embedded inherently in a political and social context, and that is particularly true of mental health care.

Most people, especially these days, fast-track from college right into medical school and then their medical careers. One of the advantages of my taking time to live a life before studying medicine and becoming a doctor was that I brought well-formulated political activist sentiments into the medical sphere. So my credentials around the inherent politicization of the practice of medicine go way back. To wit: during medical school, I became a student leader in Physicians for Social Responsibility, was privileged to be mentored by Robert J. Lifton MD and Helen Caldicott MD, and organized a national conference addressing the nuclear arms race as a public health emergency. (Yes, I studied medicine as well…)

My anonymous complainant will doubtless scoff at all this. In a comment of his/hers which I have since deleted, s/he threatens to “reveal myself” and mount a sympathy campaign for support to exclude my weblog (and, I would surmise, those of others with similar sentiments) from syndication. So we do agree on one thing at least — the advantages of taking the issue public rather than sniping from a position of cowardly anonymity. Nonetheless, I expect this is the end of this matter. I thank FmH’s readers for your patience with this idiocy.