# Jesus and the FDA



## Zepp (Nov 6, 2004)

I received an e-mail petition about this, and decided it was worthy of attention here.  From the website of Time magazine:



> *Jesus and the FDA*
> 
> By KAREN TUMULTY
> 
> ...



Almost needless to say, the National Organization of Women, among other groups, strongly opposes this appointment.

So what's your take on the mixing of religious beliefs and medicine?  Is this presidential appointment completely inappropriate?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 6, 2004)

Yes.

One sympathizes with indignation about those wacky NOW women, demanding actual medical credentials and moral character on the part of Presidential appointees to these positions.


----------



## Jay Bell (Nov 7, 2004)

> Is this presidential appointment completely inappropriate?



Absooooooolutely.


----------



## raedyn (Nov 8, 2004)

Refusing to perscribe birth control to unmarried women... that's so weird. I imagine the reasoning is that women shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage (nevermind that some women take the pill to regulate their periods or control acne). But wouldn't it make more sense to give birth control to unmarried women rather than 'subject' potential children to the 'horror' or an unwed mother? Isn't marriage supposed to be the proper place for creating children?

(for clarity's sake.. I don't have any issue with unwed mothers. Infact, since the wedding isn't until next year I guess I'm an unwed mother, too. I'm just trying to think with the logic of zealots like this)

And perscribing bible readings to treat PMS. Seriously. It might work for some women, who knows. But what about all the non-christian women? What about drugs for the /pain/?

Yeah, I'd have an issue with that appointment, f'sure. But is there any recourse for citizens who object to an appointment?


----------



## raedyn (Nov 8, 2004)

On a more basic level, I question why a MAN would be appointed to head a panel on women's health policy. Even a well-qualified not controversial man appointee seems weird to me.


----------



## Zepp (Nov 8, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'd have an issue with that appointment, f'sure. But is there any recourse for citizens who object to an appointment?



Well, if you live in the U.S., you can send me an e-mail, I can e-mail you a copy of the petition that was sent to me.  But I seriously doubt that it will accomplish anything.  Remember, this president has said publicly that he didn't care what war protesters thought.  So it seems that the only opinions that matter to him are those that are in line with his.

It also seems apparent that the threads I start in the study aren't very popular. :idunno: Oh well.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 8, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> On a more basic level, I question why a MAN would be appointed to head a panel on women's health policy. Even a well-qualified not controversial man appointee seems weird to me.




I'd have to disagree here...particularly if you had a doctor with thirty years experience in administration or research and a background as an OB/GYN or who has dealt with other women's health issues extensively.

I would have no problem with a woman being appointed to a panel on men's health issues, provided she had the qualifications.

We want the best for these jobs...not a particular gender.  Correct?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Mark Weiser (Nov 8, 2004)

Remember that JESUS is in control of GWB and everything will be okay folks lol! Next thing you know you will have prayer lines at the CDC for laying on of hands to cure infectious diseases. Or CDC Crisis units that will use Holy Water to cast out the bad germs at local health care centers. And if all else fails send in the big guy GWB to speak healing words to the sick and dying.


----------



## gmunoz (Nov 8, 2004)

I wouldn't be too quick to discount the laying on of hands idea...  Have seen for myself some pretty amazing things!


----------



## Mark Weiser (Nov 8, 2004)

hmmmm okay now for the grand show. GWB will rise up and float up into heaven and claim his throne once he is done with running the USA. He has his eyes set on a bigger government. 

And in response to the laying on of hands if you must do so please makes sure your hands are washed first I do not know where they have been thank you.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 8, 2004)

gmunoz said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be too quick to discount the laying on of hands idea... Have seen for myself some pretty amazing things!



Not to discount "alternative medicines", gmunoz, the problem here is that that sorta thing is being used _to the exclusion_ of more reputable, more conventional, and more practical medical practices.

I certainly wouldn't be comfortable if, when I was terribly ill, my doctor recommended reiki in place of antibiotics, painkillers, or antiviruses. While there are indications that reiki may work to some degree in certain situations, it is no subsitute for a good antibiotic.

In any event, this appointment has far too many religious implications to be appropriate. I doubt any of the Religious Right would be so apathetic about this if the gentleman in question was instead saying, "believe in the teachings of Buddha Gautama and everything will work out."

Personally, I consider this sort of thing evidence for the "moral erosion of society" that conservatives are so worried about...


----------



## Mark Weiser (Nov 8, 2004)

I am shocked Hertic I agree with ya lol! 

In Judaism we are taught to acheive the highest level of education that we are able to do, to be the best we can in our chosen jobs.  Myself being a nurse I study the medical field.  I for one would use any modern methods available to sustain and improve the quality of life.  Being Jewish I do not discount the role of touch, prayer and inner strength to fight back to health.  

There has to be a fine balance between the two worlds.


----------



## Zepp (Nov 9, 2004)

More mixing of religious fundamentalism with medicine: 
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20041109/pl_usatoday/druggistsrefusetogiveoutpill

Margaret Sanger must be turning in her grave.  Hopefully this isn't becoming as commonplace as the article makes it sound.


----------



## raedyn (Nov 9, 2004)

See the following thread for further discussion of this article.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18176


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 10, 2004)

gmunoz said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be too quick to discount the laying on of hands idea...  Have seen for myself some pretty amazing things!




Oh, man...lemme tell ya.  There was that massage parlor in Pattaya Beach, Thailand back in 1980....

Oh...wait.  Wrong thread.  Uh...wrong forum.  Sorry.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 10, 2004)

I must say I'm a Bush suppoter, but this is one stupid move on his part. We should never mix reigion with medicine, it just leaves a bitter taste in your mouth, lol. We are living in a world that more and more people are having sex before marriage. Wouldn't it be better to just come to terms with this and give out birth control, or should we ban it like this man wants and hope that people stop having sex because of this. LOL, I can't even write that without laughing. Anyways, I hope that dubya comes to his senses on this one.


Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 10, 2004)

Don't expect this to be the last of it, Ryno. When you support Bush you support all this garbage, too.


----------



## Zepp (Nov 10, 2004)

Rynocerous said:
			
		

> Anyways, I hope that dubya comes to his senses on this one.



If Bush had senses to come to, I doubt he would have ever selected someone like Hager to take an important postion in the FDA to begin with.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Don't expect this to be the last of it, Ryno. When you support Bush you support all this garbage, too.



I agree.  If you voted for Bush, you voted for this, whether you understood the choice or not.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Nov 10, 2004)

GAH!

The whole concept of Hager's nomination is appalling.  APPALLING.

This really is, to me, getting too close to the Church and State line, again.  He may have his own religious beliefs, and more power to him, but it sounds like he would be willing to ENFORCE his religious beliefs on the American women.

No way, buddy.  No way.

Funny, that, that unmarried women "shouldn't" have birth control while married women can - wouldn't he want to eventually take BCPs away from married women too, since we are supposed to be plentiful and multiplying, and doing our duty as helpmeets to spread the seed?


----------



## qizmoduis (Nov 11, 2004)

Don't forget that removing ALL forms of birth control is part of the agenda of the religious right.


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 11, 2004)

Well, no, abstinence or no pre-marital sex is the goal. This would make birth control a moot point in a lot of cases.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 11, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Well, no, abstinence or no pre-marital sex is the goal. This would make birth control a moot point in a lot of cases.



That's the goal for one particular restrictive religion that attempts to impose its worldview on the rest of us.

Additionally, religious abstinence-centered education programs traditionally show *higher* rates of pregnancy and STDs since they do not educate or provide backup birth control for those inevitable times when people ignore their skygods and instead respond to their naughty, fleshy urges.


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 11, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> That's the goal for one particular restrictive religion that attempts to impose its worldview on the rest of us.
> 
> Additionally, religious abstinence-centered education programs traditionally show *higher* rates of pregnancy and STDs since they do not educate or provide backup birth control for those inevitable times when people ignore their skygods and instead respond to their naughty, fleshy urges.



Yea, I guess there's a reason for everything isn't there.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Nov 11, 2004)

What you mention, PM, reminded me of a statistic I found once - although I'd have to find the source now.  It stated that 1/3rd of all children in the Victorian Era (a time we think of impeccable good manners and doing things "properly" with lots of social restrictions) were born out of wedlock.


Hmmmm!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 11, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Well, no, abstinence or no pre-marital sex is the goal. This would make birth control a moot point in a lot of cases.



No, it doesn't.

_In fact, a recent systematic analysis of pregnancy prevention strategies for adolescents found that, far from reducing unwanted pregnancies, abstinence programs actually may increase pregnancies in partners of male participants._ 


http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1355


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 11, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Well, no, abstinence or no pre-marital sex is the goal. This would make birth control a moot point in a lot of cases.



No, it doesn't.

_In fact, a recent systematic analysis of pregnancy prevention strategies for adolescents found that, far from reducing unwanted pregnancies, abstinence programs actually may increase pregnancies in partners of male participants._ 


http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1355

The article mentions how officials in the CDC have been required to go to day long conferences on "the science of abstinence," in spite of the research indicating it isn't as effective as other programs.

Another interesting tidbit from the article:

_During President Bushs tenure as governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, for instance, with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females. Overall, the teen pregnancy rate in Texas was exceeded by only four other states._

Regards,


Steve


----------



## qizmoduis (Nov 11, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> may increase pregnancies in partners of male participants.



That's a really peculiar turn of phrase. 
 :idunno: 

Do they have to try hard to come up with these things or does it come naturally to certain people?

I now return you to your regularly scheduled diatribe...


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 11, 2004)

> The article mentions how officials in the CDC have been required to go to day long conferences on "the science of abstinence," in spite of the research indicating it isn't as effective as other programs.



Its the same reason that some folks like to use the death penalty as "a deterrent", even when statistical evidence indicates otherwise. The same goes with the institution of so-called "hate crimes" and for "zero tolerance" of juvenile criminality.

What's that reason, we may ask?? Why, ideology, my dear Watson. Ideology.

These people may want to spend more time studying psychology, and less time studying Biblical passages, if they want a clue as to what this purported "human nature" thing might actually be like.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 11, 2004)

Hey, that whole thing about attacks on abortion rights being part of a generalized attack on women's rights is starting to make a lot more sense, ain't it?


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 12, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Hey, that whole thing about attacks on abortion rights being part of a generalized attack on women's rights is starting to make a lot more sense, ain't it?



Well, as a whole, the so-called "pro-life" is clearly motivated by ideology (namely, the notion that "souls" are "created" by "God" at conception). The only issue I have is when this motivaton is applied to all pro-life individuals bar none, without exception.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 12, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> On a more basic level, I question why a MAN would be appointed to head a panel on women's health policy. Even a well-qualified not controversial man appointee seems weird to me.


Gender requirements for political appointments or educationally licensed trades?  Isn't that kind of sexist?


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 12, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Gender requirements for political appointments or educationally licensed trades?  Isn't that kind of sexist?



I believe the correct term is "reverse discrimination".  :uhyeah:


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 12, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I believe the correct term is "reverse discrimination". :uhyeah:


LOL!
Another one of my favorite 'politicalese' terms.

There is simply 'discrimination' or 'racism' or 'sexism' not 'reverse'  because within the context the guy/girl with the power is abusing it in one way or another....


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 12, 2004)

*Originally Posted by hardheadjarhead
may increase pregnancies in partners of male participants.*




			
				qizmoduis said:
			
		

> That's a really peculiar turn of phrase.
> :idunno:
> 
> Do they have to try hard to come up with these things or does it come naturally to certain people?
> ...




It means that not all of the males participants had female partners who were a part of the study...yet still got pregnant by their "abstaining" boyfriends.  It is an inclusive statement that also allows for those male participants who DID have female partners who participated.

What's so odd about that?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## raedyn (Nov 12, 2004)

*loki09789*
Gender requirements for political appointments or educationally licensed trades? Isn't that kind of sexist?

Well, yes and no. Ever heard of employment equity? (NB: That is a whole separate topic, which I don't want to get into here due to potential thread gankage). The only reason I bring it up is that is another example of a situation where there are accusations of "reverse discrimination" (yes, I agree that's a silly term).

I'm not actually sure how I feel about the appointment of a man to head up a women's health panel. As soon as I posted that, I started to re-think and question myself. What if he is a well-qualified MD who has worked extensively on women's health issues and studied the subject etc etc. But I still have hesitation.

Consider;
Why was a specifically women's health panel started in the first place?
some reasons:
1) To date (this is _slowly_ changing) much health research has been done exclusively on men, and it was asssumed that it would apply to women. This has proven incorrect in many cases. Like heart attack research. Did you know that the symptoms of a heart attack are different for men and women? That the majority of women that suffer a heart attack will not experience the pain in the chest and arm that men are told to heed as a warning sign? And that while most men's heart attacks are triggered by physical exertion, most women's are triggered by emotional stress? (more info here)
2) Women have a whole subset of health experiences that men will never have to deal with - breasts, menstruation, pregnancy & birth, breastfeeding, menopause, abortion, some forms of birth control, rape. I agree a man can certainly be a technical expert on these phenomena, but technical experitse isn't everything.
3) There is also the need as group that has been oppressed and discriminated against to gain power and control. Not over their oppressor, but the power of self-determination. If men have been telling women what to do for centuries, maybe it's time that women got to determine for themselves?

I'm not militantly against a man holding this position. But I do think it's a topic worth considering.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 12, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> *loki09789*
> Gender requirements for political appointments or educationally licensed trades? Isn't that kind of sexist?
> 
> Well, yes and no. Ever heard of employment equity? (NB: That is a whole separate topic, which I don't want to get into here due to potential thread gankage). The only reason I bring it up is that is another example of a situation where there are accusations of "reverse discrimination" (yes, I agree that's a silly term).
> ...


Can you be a heart specialist without having been a heart patient? Yeah. Can you be sympathetic/sensitive and have a good bedside manner/people skills without being a woman? Yeah. Statements like that basically support the mentallity that women, by virtue of their gender alone, make better parents than men. Not true. I think that an 'empowering topic expert' whether male or female would be a fine to me.  If the point is to 'empower women' then working effectively and equally with males would be a demonstration of a living, healthy relationship between men and women.

Appointing a woman to be in charge of 'women's issues' at the exclusion of men strictly based on gender (or gender as a criteria at all) is sexist and ignores that 'empowerment' means working terms of equality between men and women.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 12, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I'm not militantly against a man holding this position. But I do think it's a topic worth considering.



_[...]from a discussion between Maya Angelou and bell hooks:

bell hooks: I'm so disturbed when my women students behave as though they can only read women, or black students behave as though they can only read blacks, or white students behave as though they can only identify with a white writer. I think the worst thing that can happen to us is to lose sight of the power of empathy and compassion.

Maya Angelou: Absolutely. Then we become brutes. Then we risk being consumed by brutism. There's a statement which I use in all my classes, no matter what I'm teaching. I put on the board the statement, 'I am a human being. Nothing human can be alien to me.' Then I put it down in Latin, 'Homo cum humani nil a me alienum puto.' And then I show them its origin. The statement was made by Publius Terentius Afer, known as Terence. He was an African and a slave to a Roman senator. Freed by that senator, he became the most popular playwright in Rome. Six of his plays and that statement have come down to us from 154 BCE. This man, not born white, not born free, said _I am a human being.

(Ken Wilber, _Boomeritis_, p. 243)

_[...] as David Berreby puts it, 'Americans have a standard playbook for creating a political-cultural identity. You start with the conviction that being a member of your group is a distinct experience, separating you from people who are not in it (even close friends and relatives) and uniting you with other members of the group (even if you have never met them). Second, you assume that your own personal struggles and humiliations and triumphs in wrestling with your trait are a version of the struggles of the group in society. The personal is political. Third, you maintain that your group has interests that are being neglected or acted against, and so it must take action --- changing how the group is seen by those outside it, for instance.'_

(Ken Wilber, _Boomeritis_, p. 241)


----------



## raedyn (Nov 12, 2004)

> Can you be a heart specialist without having been a heart patient?


Yes. Of course.


> Can you be sympathetic/sensitive and have a good bedside manner/people skills without being a woman?


Yes. Of course.
But I might still prefer my doctor to be a particular gender - man OR woman - just because I'm more comfortable with that. That's my perogitive. And yours.



> Statements like that basically support the mentallity that women, by virtue of their gender alone, make better parents than men.


 I didn't say that, I don't agree with that and I have no idea what I said that supports makes you think that I think that.



> I think that an 'empowering topic expert' whether male or female would be a fine to me. If the point is to 'empower women' then working effectively and equally with males would be a demonstration of a living, healthy relationship between men and women.


Well, yeah. Thus why I'm not saying that I think it neccesarily SHOULD be a woman. It just struck me as an odd picture; a man heading up a women's group. Maybe that says more about me than about the topic.

I have been thinking about this a lot in the days since I first read the e-mail that started this thread. I don't think I would have had the same reaction had it been a more appropriate man. If I ever went to a doctor for help with PMS and he told me to pray I think I would slap him. Maybe twice. Men have a tendancy to be really patronizing towards women and their 'woman problems'. There are many notable exceptions to this, but from what I've heard of this appointee (and I've heard a very limited amount, it's true) I don't think he is one of them.



> Appointing a woman to be in charge of 'women's issues' at the exclusion of men strictly based on gender (or gender as a criteria at all) is sexist and ignores that 'empowerment' means working terms of equality between men and women.


point taken.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 12, 2004)

While one agrees with the Terence quote wholeheartedly, one can't help feeling that anything that gives white men a taste of being discriminated against can't wholly be a bad thing.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 13, 2004)

While the above post was clearly made in jest, the notion that "white" males have not experienced persecution or discrimination in history is kinda silly.

Truth is, humans have been persecuting pretty much all other humans for a long, long, long time. You'd be hard-pressed to find any real exception to this. Things haven't even begun to change until the last 300 years or so.

Laterz.


----------

