 |
 |
Dr. Brown, Anytime that a President is on trial for impeachment (it's only happened twice in over 200 years), I think it holds some import. Whatever you feel the merits of the case, there is no doubt that it's outcome and the mere fact that it is occuring is certainly an important point in American history -- whether it's the most (or the tenth most) important Congressional debate of the century is not really the key to this issue. I don't know that I would have used those words in the press release either . . . but I'm learning that I can't be in control of everything in the world (much less everything within the AMA). I would please ask you to see my previous comments on the listserve regarding why interjecting the Journal or the AMA into this debate ON EITHER SIDE would be inappropriate. In terms of "competing partisan agendas", if we are an organization that is so radically right/conservative or so opposed to the President . . . why have we -- 1) Had the President speak at our annual Leadership Conference in Washington, DC to over 500 physician leaders in March 1998. (It was also covered on CSPAN and the major networks.) 2) Invited the President (and he accepted) to come to the AMA Washington Office to hold a press conference regarding the Bipartisan (mostly Democratically supported) Patient Bill of Rights in the late summer of 1998. (Covered by all the major news networks.) Why also would I have received a scathing letter from Newt Gingrich during the final Patient Bill of Rights debate in the House when we stood our ground and refused to support the inadequate Republican version of the bill? 3) Cooperated greatly with the President's anti-tobacco agenda with both our outspoken leadership and our financial support. 4) Been out-front in working with the Justice Department to protect physicians in their clinics and their homes when they perform abortions. (Front page USA today, November 1998). 5) Aggressively supported the nominations of both David Satcher (successfully) and Henry Foster (unsuccessfully) for the position of Surgeon General. A member of our Board of Trustes was also invited to the Oval Office swearing-in ceremony for Dr. Satcher. In fact, Dr. Satcher just addressed our House of Delegates in December, 1998 -- odd if we were such vehement opponents of his boss. 6) (were we) invited to have a seat on the President's Quality Commission which produced it's final report this year. Our current President Elect (then Board Vice Chair) participated actively on the Commission. These are just six examples that I can pull off the top of my head which I think show that we are not (to paraphrase an Oldsmobile ad) "your father's AMA." Dr. Nancy Dickey, the current and first female President of the AMA loves to make that point in most of her remarks and speeches as she travels the country. I hope these comments are helpful to you. Andrew Thomas, MD ----------------------------------- David & Zoe Brown wrote: > Dr. Thomas, > > I would appreciate your appraisal of my perspective on this issue. > > In the Dr. Anderson's statement on the sacking of Dr. Lundberg, he wrote: > > "On behalf of the AMA, we apologize to JAMA's readers, its contributors, and > to any others who feel that JAMA has been misused in the midst of the MOST > IMPORTANT CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE OF THIS CENTURY (emphasis added). JAMA's > hard-earned reputation is based on its editorial independence and integrity, > and we intend to keep it that way." > > I do not feel that the impeachment trial is "...the most important > Congressional debate of this century." I believe it is just another > skirmish in an ongoing cultural war that has resulted in hatred of the > President among the religious right of the US Republican Party; with no > likely outcome other than the acquittal (and possible censure) of the > President. We may rightly disagree on this issue. However, IMHO, Dr. > Anderson's statement itself strikes a clearly partisan tone. > > It appears to me that the competing partisan agendas (Dr. Lundberg on one > side and the AMA board and Dr. Anderson on the other) resulted in what many > on this list believe is a violation of the principles of editorial freedom. > > Respectfully, > > David Brown, MD %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%