Customer Reviews

PC, M.D.: How Political Correctness Is Corrupting Medicine

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

The author of this book has done a very excellent job in revealing how the almost cult like mentalities of political correctness, alternative medicine, and paranormal healing have crept into mainstream medicine. She uses logic and a mountain of research data to support her claim that the patient's best interest and scientific research are beginning to take second priority to political correctness and what some would call quackery.

Although the message is disturbing, I actually found reading this book to be very enjoyable. Where else will you find illogical and deceptive assertions made by politically correct advocates actually challenged? For example, a feminist group claims that only 14 percent of NIH (federal) research funds go to women's health issues. And it turns out that this is actually true. But, as the author discovers, you are not told that less than 7 percent goes to research on male diseases and the rest goes to research on diseases that are not gender specific. The book is full of examples like this, where claims made by the so-called experts don't hold up under further scrutiny.

I strongly recommend this book because it discusses controversial issues that truly are a matter of life and death. Cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's and Diabetes will almost certainly be delayed, at best, because of political correctness and other problems mentioned in this book. On the other hand, its hard to read this book and not take some comfort in knowing that there are still many people in the medical profession like Dr. Sally Satel who have the intelligence and courage to stand up for the truth!

Satel has done an outstanding job on this book. I found that as I read it, I had a strong urge to jump up and yell, 'right on!' As a professor at a medical school, I wish that all of my fellow faculty would read this. There are some extreme examples in this book but I don't doubt that they are real. This book exposes what many of us have felt but lacked the words and clear thoughts to express.

Medicine in the modern sense is about empirical proof. Some crackpot ideas have panned out as great ideas. Others are not withstanding the test of reality. An idea must be tested and Satel holds some ideas up and examines them with scientific curiosity. Too many of the ideas advanced as modern or post modern therapies are lacking evidence to support their acceptance.

This is a must read for all of us in academic medicine and public health. Satel's critical thoughts need to be reviewed and discussed. I believe that she has brought together some really important ideas.

This is a fantastic book. It elucidates the degree to which Political Correctness is hurting patients, physicians and hospitals. Dr. Satel discusses "scientific studies", which do not hold up to peer scrutiny, but have been used by those with social agendas to support their ideals. She does not discount the fact that our environment affects our health and well being in certain instances; however, she does show that a much more important factor is personal responsibility for ones health maintenance. This book is especially meaningful to anyone involved in healthcare delivery or policy making. I highly recommend it.

Having learned about this book in Objectivist Newsletter, I rushed to buy it and swallowed it all in one day. The assault on rationalism and objectivity is, sadly, a long-standing problem of modern intellectuals, but I was sincerely hoping that this self-defeating irrational approach would be limited to liberal arts. I was wrong. As Dr. Satel very convicingly shows, the field of medicine is not by any means immune to this assault. The problem is, this time we are talking about human lives and well-being at stake. Giving up objectivity and critical thinking of modern science to sentiments like "I don't care how it works or what the studies show, I FEEL it works" is a sure prescription for disaster. Even though I do not share author's pessimism upon the matter, I do think this book is a serious wake-up call for doctors and patients alike.

The bimodal distribution of this book's ratings are telling, as the author manages to accomplish exactly what she decries in the book: a politicization of health. As I look for evidence refuting the prevailing hypothesis that social conditions are predominantly responsible for determining life expectancy (if not the "risk factors" themselves), I am constantly disappointed by the partisanship and lack of scientific rigor from its detractors. Therein lies its major flaw: In focusing on the political statements of her targets and ignoring the growing body of scientific evidence informing our notion of health, it fails to make any meaningful statement regarding the current state of health and health research.

Instead of identifying differences in racial epidemiology for a productive purpose, i.e. beginning to offer an epidemiological hypothesis founded in biological mechanisms (which is of course, the foundation for scientific progress), she differentiates for political reasons, in often contrary ways. For example she stigmatizes African Americans for not partaking in breast cancer screenings when no study has in fact demonstrated that mammography and biopsy has actually shown to increase population life expectancy (unless you count the phantom gains of lead-time bias). There is no evidence that the greater proportion of ductal carcinoma in situ detected (predominantly, in white Americans due to increased voluntary screening at younger ages, rather than the recommended screening 55+) are malignant or even invasive enough to create an appreciable decrease in life expectancy. To suggest otherwise is not only bad science and bad statistics, but potentially harmful to all women (not only African Americans). Additionally, insofar as there are good empirical screening data, African American women have identical or better recommended screening rates (i.e. those over 55 years) than whites and other minorities. Satel avoids this issue (perhaps deliberately) by not discussing the actual screening rates and instead focusing on the follow-up rates.

The fact is, African American women suffer from more aggressive, hard to detect, breast cancer-types that strike at younger ages. The fact that screening rates have not affected life expectancy and that conventional screening recommendations have thus far been ineffective at improving health outcomes is precisely why public health researchers have sought to examine other potential causes, not because of some sort of socialist conspiracy. Rather than address the complexity of the issue, she is content on blaming self-efficacy. The assessment is even more preposterous if you consider that Satel tells us that recently migrated Hispanic Americans are as healthy as whites but consistently use less medical care and undergo fewer screenings (both true).

In reality, what Satel advocates is a different form of P.C. medicine: oblivious medicine. In doing so, she advocates business as usual, literally; foisting manufactured interventions which have scant scientific evidence of efficacy in order to reaffirm personal beliefs about irresponsibility. The fact that she has ignored entire fields of research in epigenetics, developmental origins of health and disease, life-course epidemiology, and the actual underlying studies for the medical interventions she touts is indicative that, rather than attempting to find solutions to the issues that she raises, she is content to paint it as a partisan issue and stymie all further inquiry. This does not bode well for the scientific progress she claims P.C. medicine is restricting. She repeats the (well-worn, but essentially fabricated) statistic that 50% of deaths are preventable or modifiable with the unspoken implication that they are modifiable by individuals themselves. At the risk of being too glib, death by atomic bomb is modifiable yet taking refuge underneath a school desk has little efficacy, no matter how much we value the human spirit. The truth is, we are still learning about what makes us resilient to cancer, or drug addiction, or diabetes but we do know that current prevention and treatment measures are ineffective. Furthermore, we know that health tracks social well being much better than medical innovation (better in some poorer countries than in ours, despite our medical technology). So, far from advocating an absolution of personal responsibility, researchers are attempting to resolve where it is fruitful to continue to advocate individual discipline and medical treatment and where other interventions may prove more fruitful. In modern parlance, this is know as cost-benefit analysis.

It is sadly ironic that, as a psychiatrist, Satel can not comprehend the degree to which illnesses are social constructs and socially manifest, and require widespread redress. What is more troubling however, is the implicit assumption that we are at the pinnacle of understanding how health is formed (the only argument that is reasonable if you believe that research into social causes is drawing away from ways of delivering "lifestyle reform"). After all, the evidence of the primacy of socioeconomic status in determining health outcomes far exceeds the evidence Snow had available suggesting choleric microorganisms. Instead, both of these theories arise from same foundations: observational rigor; an open, analytical mind; and a frustration with prevailing explanatory and interventional mechanisms. Furthermore, it was political action (and political censure) that defined the boundaries of Snow's ability to address the problem. Luckily for Snow, no one accused him of anti-capitalist tendencies for attributing the outbreak to the S & V Waterworks Company.

Ultimately, however, it is the form of her argument that most weakens her book. Rather than systematically disproving a single hypothesis (e.g. that societal inequities cause disease and harm) through cohort studies, risk/benefit analysis, etc. her synthesis of disparate political foes belies an irrationality that is contrary to her plea for dispassionate science. By all means read this book, but also read Hadler's "Last Well Person," Wilkinson's "Impact of Inequality," and any number of articles on developmental origins of health and disease to see how little Satel contributes to the conversation. I believe Satel would agree that you do yourself a disservice if you allow yourself to be persuaded that health is a partisan issue.

This text will be essential reading for the student entering medical school to the accomplished doctor. Dr. Satel makes challenging and controversial points that could be too easily dismissed on first reading; that "knee-jerk reaction" should be avoided until the reader grapples with her arguments. For those who know the political and cultural dynamics of the medical profession and medical academy, they will recognize this book as a courageous attempt to bring about a new conversation within the medical community. I commend it to readers interested in subject at the crossroads of public policy and medicine.

This book reminds me of fictional works such as Alice In Wonderland and Gulliver's Travels that celebrate the absurd, but unfortunately the author Sally Satel is talking about reality. Political correctness would be really funny if the results weren't so tragic.

Satel deplores the dismissal of requiring individuals from taking personal responsibility for their health and instead focusing on the supposedly oppressive environment around them that is making them a sick victim of white male-dominated society. People who are pathologically anti-white male and anti-racist have infiltrated key positions in medical education and medical industry and promote their poisonous political views to their helpless patients.

Satel does a critique of alternative medicine particularly regarding therapeutic touch, a medical fad that she says has not been proven to be effective in any clinical studies. She says that PC medicine's theories and remedies for how a person gets sick or well have not been researched properly or their statistical results are flawed and supposed descrimination in medical care can be explained by other reasons such as the physiological and cultural differences between the sexes or races.

PC medicine emphasizes the post-modernism of Michel Foucault in which the dominant culture is oppressing minorities and this oppression results in sickness. The dominant culture of white males must be done away with to improve minority health. It also emphasizes quasi-marxist radical egalitaritarism in which the patients are to participate in their healing instead of relying on the expertise of the doctor. Therefore, psychiatric patients view themselves as victims of their treatment. This egalitarian view tries to explain differences in health care and the health of different groups as a matter of unwarranted privilege and discrimination when other more reasonable explanations are presented by Satel.

This is a well written book that is more interesting than it initially seems. Post-modern political correctness and pseudo-intellectualism was bad enough in the humanities department, but now that it has invaded the practical realms of healing, it has made health-care less efficient. Satel advises getting back to solving health care problems by getting back to the practical basics of health care: personal responsibility for one's own health and scientifically-verified treatments and research studies that actually improve public health.

I have worked professionally with Sally Satel for five years and I have been waiting eagerly for this book to be published. Everyone has to deal with the medical establishment simply to protect their own health and the health of their loved ones. Everyone needs to understand the information that is presented in this book. Satel has done the research, assembled the data and given all of us the information we need to protect ourselves. If you think that medicine is only driven by science, not ideology, you need to read this book. If you think that men and women have equal access to healthcare, you need to read this book. If you think that male and female diseases are equally well understood, you need to read this book. If you believe that you should simply accept what your doctor tells you, you need to read this book. You will have to see the doctor sooner or later. When it happens, you will be glad that you read this book.

Dr. Satel's writing style is personal, yet erudite.

As for the significance of the book, one need only look to some of the reviews on Amazon. Any book that can evoke both such admiration and seething criticism must be worthwhile.

I was once told, you aren't doing something important unless you are p---- some people off. Dr. Satel has that prerequisite to an important work patented.

So whether you will be enlightened or angered by her work, you should read it.

An excellent description about how political correctness is destroying both American medicine and public health as a profession. Highly recommended.

The book makes a compelling case how the politicalization of public health has seriously diminished the day-to-day practice of public health and ultimately the capacity of public health to save lives. The book gives many examples where people are putting politics above science.

As a former state health officer, I can testify to the truths of this book - it is scary how deep down these bizarre belief systems have taken over the noble, life-saving profession of the public health practitioner. As this continues, many lives will be lost as more institutions of the public health community focus on fighting democracy and capitalism rather than fighting disease, injury, disability, and death.

One of the great things about public health people is their sense they are on a mission from God. Their idealism is striking but makes them prone to political and cultural arguments about the causes of illness and injury. This distraction from science and management can be a fatal flaw when the real world demands pragmatism and results.

In light of recent terrorist attacks much has been written about the poor state of our nation's public health system. The reports, sadly, are true. A primary reason is the painfully low priority public health has received over the years at all levels of government. But a secondary reason is the practical fallout from the politicalization of public health education and practice. As this book demonstrates, public health has been fighting the wrong war.