Sunday, July 26, 2009

Don't Turn The Roast Back On In The Oven Yet!

Another post from the book group we had at Multiply

While I enjoyed "State Of Fear"  very much,  as I always like stories that make me think,  at the close of the book Michael Crichton writes an appendix that really caught my attention.   It can be read in its entirety HERE.  But in case you do not want to go to the site and read  all of it,  here is a quote of some of the contents:

"Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out. . . 

 Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California. 

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected. . . 


The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful --- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing --- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated."

I wanted to make sure that the topic of this appendix was mentioned here at BAM sometime during the month of discussion of this book.   I have strong feelings that we need to review the errors of eugenics periodically to prevent any thoughts that might lead us toward that path again.  Please visit the following website and spend some time at your leisure.  Click HERE.

35 comments:


  1. What Is Eugenics? -- powered by eHow.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for posting this. Being descended from some possibly "dysgenic" Italians that some of the legislation was designed to restrict, this had personal meaning to me. I remember when I first read about this in college in a History of Science in America course I was totally horrified.

    We like to think that we always take the moral high ground here in America, but this has not always been true. In fact, we have done or contemplated many of the same things that that Hitler and his ilk did during WWII. There were even plans to build our own "concentration camps" during the war and round up and hold Italians and Germans, not just the Japanese as happened in California. I always wondered what my mother would have thought of that if she knew just how close it came -- the reason it was not done was that the Italians and Germans had been here long enough to establish a strong economic base.

    As for the Japanese, that still horrifies me. These were good citizens who actually cooperated with what was done to them because they were good citizens. The amazing thing is that there is very little (some but very little) bitterness about this. The Japanese came out of the camps and reestablished themselves, opening businesses, making homes and continuing to thrive in California. And, you know what, I bet there wasn't a spy in the bunch.... a group of innocent people were persecuted for nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As for Roosevelt's statement that "We have to keep America American," perhaps he forgot for a moment that he and ALL OF US are descended from immigrants unless we have pure Native American blood.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you for your excellent comments kid. You have been one of our faithful reading but never commenting peeps and I am glad to see you speak up!

    ReplyDelete
  5. definitly he made a very silly if not stupid statement -if that were true everyone except the american indian would have to leave LOL

    ReplyDelete
  6. It has been suggested that the only reason the Early Americans were here first was because they had reservations.

    Oh now, put down that brick before you hurt yourself. That line was first told to me by a Chief of the Oglala Sioux Nation while were smoking some ... uh, er, uh ... let's just say the peace pipe at the HQ of his Nation in Wakapala, South Dakota.

    I learned to dance there a long time before that other guy starting Dancing With Wolves. A little dab of peyote to your peace pipe will do that.

    (Sure did make me hungry though And even though the Early Americans are depicted as a somber, cheerless group by Hollywood (that's what happens when you choose Italians to play Indians), the ones I knew up there certainly laughed a lot, especially after passing the pipe around for awhile.)

    Remember Buddy Hackett's line from the movie, "The slickest chick I ever saw was slick chick, chick slick Chicasaw squaw." And since he was Chicasaw, I guess he knew.

    ReplyDelete
  7. With re eugenics, isn't it wonderful how hindsight is always so perfect, yet it is difficult to see things as clearly as they are progressing.
    I guess that is why the ani-environmentalists want to cut down all the trees, they are blocking their view of the forest.

    If was that great leader, whose face they wanted to put on Mt. Rushmore, none other than Ronald Raygun who said, "The trees are our number one source of air polltion."

    Isn't this a great country? First we elect a man president to was a Chimp's co-star, then later elected the Chimp.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think that Michael Crichton put this appendix in that included Eugenics to warn of putting the cart before the horse as far as passing legislation before an issue is thought through. I know that it seems our govt never gets anything done but the fact that so many opposing forces argue all the sides is supposed to keep disasters like this Eugenics thing from occurring.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think with his medical background and personal interests he is a scientist and proponent of "the scientific method." His feeling is apparently that we should beware of "pseudoscience" and bandying about terms that do not have specific clear meanings and which are not measurable. I went to his website to read a little more about him and really found it fascinating. No wonder his books were so great and so appealing to me with his science background and his ability to extrapolate and tell a great story from that. I've been a big fan of his ever since Andromeda Strain, with very few of his books that I didn't love. I'm going to miss not having a new Crichton to read, but he did leave us an excellent body of work, work that is worthy of rereading.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Besides State Of Fear, the only Michael Crichton book I have read is "Next", which I also enjoyed. I too look forward to reading more of his work.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I didn't even get it till you high lighted it. And I am still thinking I am not getting it right. Surely not.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wait - Bush one came after the chimp co star right?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm not sure ANY joke is funny enough to keep you laughing for 16 years, although Raygun and the Chimp did a good job of it, as a matter of fact people all over the world were laughing, until they got hauled off to places unknown and tortured. Kinda takes the fun out of funny.

    ReplyDelete
  14. hehehe we got it sorry we are a little slow on the uptake

    ReplyDelete
  15. Maybe the chronology is awry ... Back in the 1950's Ronald Reagan made a series of movies with a Chimpanzee who for all intents and purposes was the star (certainly more popular than Reagan).
    Flash forward a number of years and even though there were those who thought Bonzo (the Chimp) might have been a better candidate they elected his co-star instead.
    The life span of the Chimpanzee is about twice that of humans, so the Republicans brought Bonzo (the Chimp) out of retirement, hired Dick Cheney to be his manager, and viola, he became president, and if you look at some of the photos taken during his terms, you see that despite all the makeup, the chimp shows through. It especially became evident every time he opened his mouth to speak (he had better writers back in the '50's.)
    This is history in the making. First The Chimp was the first non-human to be president and the only time the job has been filled for 8 years without the occupant being elected either time.

    ReplyDelete
  16. THANKS AGAIN FINALLY THE LIGHT CAME ON
    also thanks a ton for the wonderful discourse you did for us-I learned more from you than the book actually-thanks again

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes Tim, you were a joy to co host with!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Just be sure to spell my name right on the check! (lol)

    I had a good time. The hardest part for me was holding my tongue the first three weeks., I was afraid of making some people angry and pushing them away from the dialog.
    Sometimes the hardest think that a former teacher can learn is to step out from behind the podium and view things from that perspective. It is truly amazing.
    What was the old story about the blind men who were describing an elephant. One felt his leg and said was a tree, one felt his trunk and said it was a snake, etc. We all see things differently, and that is what makes a "job" like this so enjoyable.

    If you need me again, I'm always around

    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  19. Just a post-appendix blurb to see if there are still any embers in the fire.

    I once had an opportunity to speak with some doctors over at the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta while I was with the Ziegler Corp.

    This is the jist of our talks ...

    Suppose I came to you with irrefutable scientific information gathered from research that has been locked away for a long time and recently rediscovered that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a simple medical procedure that will cure any existing cancer patients and methods to develop a vaccine that will prevent cancer much as the vaccine that prevents small pox.

    Would you be interested? Would you like to be the next Saulk?

    Assuming there might be one or two .... would you withdraw your name from the field if I told you the name of the doctors who discovered it were Goebbels and Goering and the research was conducted at Auschwitz?

    Oh, you would? Why? Medical ethics?

    So you would continue to let people suffer and die unnecessarily rather than cure them with information obtained using live prisoners as research rats by the Nazis in the death camps, am hearing this right? How ethical is that?

    Would there be any justification in using the information if we did a big PR campaign and portrayed these people as amazing patriots and great heroes sacrificing themselves in an altruistic fashion for the good of greater mankind?

    Would you categorize this as a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation where the only people who win are the patients and their families?

    Would you be willing to sacrifice your esteem among your associates and possibly lose your license for administering these cures without the approval of the AMA and the Government?

    If you said, "Yes," I know a lot of folks in pain right now that sure could a few "joints" of some good Acapulco Gold" to ease their suffering.

    At what point does the life and well being of a patient take priority over career and/or political decisions?

    ReplyDelete
  20. .... and since we are on the topic of "medical ethics' .....

    You have been given access to an unlimited supply of money, the more you spend, the more that comes in.
    Do want to use it to

    A. Find a cure for cancer
    B. Find a cure for diabetes
    C. Find a cure for MS
    D. Find a cure for A. B. C and any other major disease
    E. All the above
    F. Buy a new car.

    It's what we call a "trick" question because the correct answer is F. Buy a new car. WHAT? You disagree?
    Well suppose you did accomplish any one of the items listed are you prepared for how many people you are going to anger?
    No more cancer, then the folks who produce the chemical used to treat cancer will be out of work. The people who are trained to administer the radiation are out of work. The people who manufacture and maintain the equipment are out of work. Think of the number of "specialists" who don't have a specialty any more. Think of the number of hospital beds that will be empty and the staff that will have to be laid off from doctors down to the folks who wash the sheets.
    And what about the people who manufacture the sheets and pillows? Cut back on staff ... not as much demand.
    It is like a rock in a pond ... it just keeps going and going like the bunny on batteries.
    That's just one disease
    Imagine curing diabetes ... not as much demand for prosthesis since diabetics aren't losing their legs, no more need for insulin, no more need for Glucophage or any of the numerous oral diabetic medications, no more need for syringes. Not as many teachers of braille needed, since diabetics aren't going blind anymore.

    The truth of the matter is if you are given all this money, you would be better off buying a new car. That will make several people happy, including you.

    The alternative is to make a lot of people unhappy and cause a recession with all these job layoffs and loss of production.

    OK ... bonus question .. Two parts (T & F) Essay optional for additional point.

    A. We routinely shoot rockets into space
    B. We have allegedly been to the moon once or twice
    C. We have a permanently installed space station which we visit regularly
    D. We have a giant telescope installed in space so we can see things that happened a billion years ago
    E. The last major disease we cured was Polio.

    D. In as few words possible, explain why you feel we have mastered the technology to do A through D yet have not been able to cure or prevent even the common cold?
    Points to ponder in your answer. How much political weight is being brought to bear from those who are making huger profits off these diseases?


    I forgot to mention when I addressed the doctors at CDC I made a few enemies by offering my opinion that:

    "If we had irrefutable proof that you could catch AIDS from gripping the handle of a gold club, or by riding in the back of a golf cart or sitting on a stool in the "19th Green" we would have a cure before the end of the week.".

    ReplyDelete
  21. great debate question-the AMA is well I never ever belonged they have their own agenda and it was never to help anone lol-and the government well-

    ReplyDelete
  22. I am confused. You are saying the nazi's used weed to cure cancer in the concentration camps?

    ReplyDelete
  23. they used and tried everything mary and with some great results-sad to say -

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm not so sure that they used weed or not. Probably not, since they would felt that was something used by the low lifes they were trying to get rid of.
    What I was trying to say is, IF ,and only IF we discovered that their "research" in Auschwitz and Buchwald and these other places on unwilling and live human patients had developed a cure for cancer or diabetes or MS, and the research papers had been hidden away all thes years, and IF we found these papers and IF it turned out they were right, THEN what do we do with it? Do we cure people knowing the horrible conditions under which the research was done, or do we CURE them using the research and techniques available because of the research.
    The smart remark about the grass was aimed at those in the audience who were only to willing to say they would use the research and the techniques to help their patients.
    It is easy to pat yourself and tell everyone how brave you are until the bear stands up in front of you a bares her teeth.
    My challenge was to them, since they were willing to break the law by using the Nazi research to cure patients and relieve them of their pain, then they didn't have to wait for the unlikely research to turn up from the Nazi's. We know full well NOW that cannabis is a great reliever of several diseases, including the nausea commonly associated with chemo therapy. It also relieves the discomfort and seems to help pt with glaucoma.
    Despite that, these people suffer on and on because "POT" is illegal.
    If there is one thing in the world that, IMHO is lower than whale shit, it is a hypocrite and especially those who have taken the "hypocrite" oath. "First do no harm" ... to the patient? to your career? I wonder.
    How harnful is "complacency" and "go along to get along?"
    BTW, the whale shits on the bottom of the ocean, if you need graphic proof of how low they are.

    ReplyDelete
  25. that is the reason I no longer or never did belong to the AMA
    but believe me we are not all out for money -

    ReplyDelete
  26. There are many, many folks working in the trenches in health care, who often are frustrated that their "calling" has to be made secondary to the bureaucracy a "triage" set up to see who has the best health plan all the way down to no coverage at all.
    Sad to say the amount and quality of care is directly proportional to the amount and quality of your insurance.
    My sister has been nurse for 40 yrs or more, my mother before that.
    My sister now works almost exclusively in home health care. She got burned out a few years ago with all the "BS" coming down from the brass. She has worked hospitals, private clinics, Nursing homes, you name it, and always seems to get tangled up with the bosses. Her ideas of health care are probably a little idealistic, but most folks can live with that.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Home health care is a good place to rest when you are feeling burnt out. One of the advantages of nursing is that there are so many areas to move into when you get fatigued at one or the other.

    ReplyDelete
  28. A number of years ago in Baton Rouge there was a critical shortage of qualified nurses to work the IU Units, surgery, etc. One of the problems was the "burnout" issue.

    In addition to the burnout, many of the nurses were "additional income", many had husbands who were professionals, lawyers, engineers, etc. There wasn't really any need for her income, and there wasn't a great incentive to work horrible hours under less than ideal situations.

    The professionals brought together a "think tank" of nurses to see what they would recommend that might lure them back into the profession again.

    They came up with some good ideas

    #1. Instead of being an "employee" those that chose to return would be considered "independent contractors." There would be nothing withheld from their checks ... no retirement, no medical insurance, no income taxes, no social security, etc. Each person was "on his own" with regard to all those things.
    #2. The money that would normally be spent by the company for their share of the above would instead be given to the nurse..
    #3. Since they were independent contractors, they earned no sick leave or annual leave and the money the company would have paid them for the number of allowable days of both would be given to the nurse instead and she would not be paid for taking time off

    The administrative types hunkered down their CPA and ran the numbers. The truth of the matter was it was less expensive to nearly triple the stipend of the nurse as an independent contractor than to keep her on as an employee.

    They agreed to do it but made it optional for those who relied heavily or entirely on their check to continue to do it the old way.

    Suddenly there were nurses waiting in line for the jobs, and it was a blessing for everyone because there was a constant supply. If a nurse wanted to take a few days off, it wasn't hard to find a temporary replacement.

    Sometimes a 'few days" off became a "few weeks" off, and when they were ready to go back to work, they just put their name back into the rotation (seems like there was a Temp Staffers or something of that nature that managed the whole thing.)

    Those that were veterans of the Surgery Suite, or OB Gyn or Oncology were generally back on the job someplace within 24 hours of announcing their availability again.

    Some of the nurses became like "substitute teachers" working on an "on call" basis and choosing where and when to work, if at all.

    It was a "win win" situation .. if a nurse felt a "burn out" coming on, she just took time off. If a person only wanted to work 2 or 3 days a week, it could arranged. I she wanted to work 12 hour shifts, no problemo, if she wanted to work 8 hrs or less, no problemo.

    Ironically enough, when a nurse could take time off anytime she wanted for any reason at all or no reason at all most of them took less time off than when they were employees.
    Sometimes you have to think outside the box.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Lots of choices out there. I envy the "travel nurses" who go hither and yon for short stints. I know I am to into a routine to tolerate that but the freedom sounds wonderful. Winter someplace warm. Summer someplace cooler.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I actually knew a couple who were professional substitute teachers. They had a winter home in Florida and a summer home in Minneapolis and divided their time between the two.
    During the regular school year they worked every day as teachers, and in the summer months did tutoring or teaching private academies that had school the year round.
    If they wanted to take a week or so off, they just did. They would finish a current assignment at whatever school they were working and not accept another until they were ready to go back.
    Their expenses were minimal and their combined salaries was slightly higher than if just one person had a "real" job. As a matter of fact the withholding on two smaller checks was less than one larger check, so they really gained there.
    I love entrepreneurs ...
    Back in the '60 I knew a couple who were professional pan handlers. They would wander through LAX asking for spare change, getting dimes and quarters. With planes constantly coming and going all day and all night, there was always a fresh supply of sources. She would work one concourse for a few hours, he another, they would meet for lunch. Back in those days they still had those lockers in the airport and they would deposit their coins in the locker and go back to work.
    They said they could average $200 an hour or more. They would work long enough to get airfare to Hawaii or where ever they felt like going, spend a few days relaxing in the sun, then back to the airport to earn enough to fly to the next place.
    Another guy I knew in the Los Angeles/Long Beach area would drive up to a bus stop where military guys were waiting to catch a bus to LAX. He had a beautiful new Pontiac (back when those things were as big as cabin cruisers) nice soft leather seats, air conditioning, nice music system ... he would roll his window down and say, "Anybody going to LAX?" Of course we all were, and about 5 or 6 guys would pile in.
    Of course he could not charge for the trip because he was not licensed, but it was understood among us who used his services to make a "donation" equivalent to or slightly larger than bus fare.
    He could make as much as $100 (sometimes more) on a trip to LAX and another $100 on the way back, He could make as many or as few trips per day as he felt he needed to. He was averaging close to $300 per hour. I(f he timed it just right he could sometimes make two trips out and one back in an hour depending on the time of day and traffic.) Of course he paid for his gas ($.20 per gallon) and other expenses. He also paid cash for his Pontiac.
    I admire folks like that who had the wherewithal to think up a plan like that and make it work.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Then there are those of us, while we admire the ones who have more flexibility and the resulting freedoms, have to opt for the security of the regular paycheck with health care benefits. Not to mention the routine of schedule to their lives.

    ReplyDelete