Facebook Twitter

Letter: Does the U.S. really need a Surgeon General?

SHARE Letter: Does the U.S. really need a Surgeon General?
AP20212710853300.jpg

Surgeon General Jerome Adams speaks during a roundtable on donating plasma at the American Red Cross national headquarters on Thursday, July 30, 2020, in Washington.

Evan Vucci, Associated Press

Why are the Surgeon General and the National Institute of Health allowed to make policies?

Not everyone shares a wholesale belief in modern medicine. Some prefer dietary and lifestyle choices to prescription drugs. Some feel biochemists are more authoritative than doctors in many respects. These are philosophical choices that include competing scientific theories. Americans should be free to patronize services matching their philosophy. Allowing medical officials to make policies imposes a state philosophy. That is un-American.

Doctors have differing opinions. When my first child was diagnosed with a condition fatal outside the womb, one doctor said vaginal birth was impossible. Another said a home birth was possible. Americans are entitled to a second opinion. The “Nation’s Doctor” allows for one.

We can tell doctors their services are no longer required. In the information age, isn’t it time to tell the Surgeon General his services are no longer required? Life is fraught with misinformation; modern medicine is not excepted. Doctors say saturated fats are bad. Yet, my biochemist friend refers to butter, lard and coconut oil as “the good stuff.” She says doctors go to the biochemists to learn how substances affect the body. Biochemists are the real experts here. Rather than appoint a medical truth czar, Americans should be free to sort through information themselves.

While modern medicine seeks to tell us what is true, it cannot tell us what is right. There is nothing right about unelected medical appointees prescribing government overreach.

David Willson

Herriman