*Co-authored by Tej Azad, Chris Jenson, Daniel Lazzareschi, Nathan Lo and Rahul Rekhi.
Last August, we joined over 20,000 fellow first-year medical students in the beginning of our journey as physicians-in-training. With white coat donned and stethoscope in hand, each of us made a solemn pledge: to "devote our lives to the service of humanity." This vow, inspired by the Hippocratic Oath, challenged us to safeguard the lives of our patients and our communities. This symbolic act also marked the beginning of our roles as healers and advocates, leaders and public servants, and -- above all -- as doctors.
Yet now these convictions come under question. As future physicians, are we expected to be leaders in our field, to improve quality and access to care, and most importantly, to do our utmost to improve the health of our fellow citizens? As we watch the fallout of Dr. Vivek Murthy's nomination for Surgeon General, the answer appears to be a resounding "No."
As medical students, we are told of the many health crises taking hold across the country. The obesity epidemic is spreading, with chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease following closely in its wake. Medical costs continue to rise, along with paradoxically poor health outcomes. But when we look to those ahead of us for inspiration -- those like Dr. Murthy -- and we observe the partisan opposition they must endure, the prospects for meaningful change are disheartening.
Dr. Murthy is a highly trained physician, healthcare entrepreneur, and co-founder of Doctors for America, who epitomizes the fiercely optimistic sentiment of our generation. Yet despite these exceptional qualities, Dr. Murthy's nomination is in dire straits. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has worked to block his confirmation for his belief that gun violence is relevant to public health even though this same perspective is held by the American Medical Association and supported by extensive medical research [1]. If this example is allowed to stand, we can hardly expect the next generation of civically engaged Americans to be leaders in anything but title.
If we as a society fail to support Dr. Murthy, we risk losing far more than a gifted and driven Surgeon General -- we risk losing a system in which the most passionate public servants can rise to top leadership positions and effect meaningful change. This comes at a time with declining youth interest in pursuing jobs in public service and government, which has dropped from 10 percent in 2009 to 6 percent in 2013 [2]. According to a 2013 poll by the Harvard Institute of Politics, over one-third of Millennials participated in community service, but nearly one-half believed politics is unable to solve our nation's challenges. [3] If the campaign against Dr. Murthy succeeds, this would favor a system in which lobby appeasement, not individual merit, is the most important criterion for candidacy. Though its repercussions may be silent in the immediate-term, this event may propagate insidious consequences in the long-term, discouraging tomorrow's would-be leaders from pursuing careers in public service where they can address the important issues of our generation.
Ultimately, blocking Dr. Murthy's nomination for his commonly held position on gun regulation sets an alarming precedent for future physician-leaders, that despite noble intentions and clear qualifications, a public servant's political fate is largely predetermined by his or her alignment with partisan wedge issues. In contrast, a fair confirmation hearing with an objective evaluation of Dr. Murthy's credentials and experience would demonstrate to young Americans that passion, innovation and integrity are still valued and continue to play a role in American policymaking.
For these reasons, we ask our government to support the confirmation of Dr. Vivek Murthy as Surgeon General -- for him, for the inspiration of future health care leaders, and for our country.
Tej Azad, Sejal Hathi, Chris Jensen, Daniel Lazzareschi, Nathan Lo, and Rahul Rekhi are current medical students and aspiring policymakers.
References:
[1] Loftin C., McDowall D., Wiersema B., Cottey T.J. "Effects of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide In the District of Columbia." New England Journal of Medicine, 325 (1991): 1615-1620
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199112053252305
[2] Grotophorst, Z., Dumbacher E. "Minding the Leadership Gap: Attracting Millenials to the Federal Government." Government Business Council (GBC) Briefings, March 2012
http://www.govexec.com/gbc/minding-leadership-gap-attracting-millennials-federal-government/41503/
[3] Institute of Politics, Harvard University. "Survey of Young Americans' Attitudes Towards Politics and Public Service: 23rd Edition." Apr. 30th, 2013.
http://www.iop.harvard.edu/institute-politics-spring-2013-poll
Last August, we joined over 20,000 fellow first-year medical students in the beginning of our journey as physicians-in-training. With white coat donned and stethoscope in hand, each of us made a solemn pledge: to "devote our lives to the service of humanity." This vow, inspired by the Hippocratic Oath, challenged us to safeguard the lives of our patients and our communities. This symbolic act also marked the beginning of our roles as healers and advocates, leaders and public servants, and -- above all -- as doctors.
Yet now these convictions come under question. As future physicians, are we expected to be leaders in our field, to improve quality and access to care, and most importantly, to do our utmost to improve the health of our fellow citizens? As we watch the fallout of Dr. Vivek Murthy's nomination for Surgeon General, the answer appears to be a resounding "No."
As medical students, we are told of the many health crises taking hold across the country. The obesity epidemic is spreading, with chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease following closely in its wake. Medical costs continue to rise, along with paradoxically poor health outcomes. But when we look to those ahead of us for inspiration -- those like Dr. Murthy -- and we observe the partisan opposition they must endure, the prospects for meaningful change are disheartening.
Dr. Murthy is a highly trained physician, healthcare entrepreneur, and co-founder of Doctors for America, who epitomizes the fiercely optimistic sentiment of our generation. Yet despite these exceptional qualities, Dr. Murthy's nomination is in dire straits. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has worked to block his confirmation for his belief that gun violence is relevant to public health even though this same perspective is held by the American Medical Association and supported by extensive medical research [1]. If this example is allowed to stand, we can hardly expect the next generation of civically engaged Americans to be leaders in anything but title.
If we as a society fail to support Dr. Murthy, we risk losing far more than a gifted and driven Surgeon General -- we risk losing a system in which the most passionate public servants can rise to top leadership positions and effect meaningful change. This comes at a time with declining youth interest in pursuing jobs in public service and government, which has dropped from 10 percent in 2009 to 6 percent in 2013 [2]. According to a 2013 poll by the Harvard Institute of Politics, over one-third of Millennials participated in community service, but nearly one-half believed politics is unable to solve our nation's challenges. [3] If the campaign against Dr. Murthy succeeds, this would favor a system in which lobby appeasement, not individual merit, is the most important criterion for candidacy. Though its repercussions may be silent in the immediate-term, this event may propagate insidious consequences in the long-term, discouraging tomorrow's would-be leaders from pursuing careers in public service where they can address the important issues of our generation.
Ultimately, blocking Dr. Murthy's nomination for his commonly held position on gun regulation sets an alarming precedent for future physician-leaders, that despite noble intentions and clear qualifications, a public servant's political fate is largely predetermined by his or her alignment with partisan wedge issues. In contrast, a fair confirmation hearing with an objective evaluation of Dr. Murthy's credentials and experience would demonstrate to young Americans that passion, innovation and integrity are still valued and continue to play a role in American policymaking.
For these reasons, we ask our government to support the confirmation of Dr. Vivek Murthy as Surgeon General -- for him, for the inspiration of future health care leaders, and for our country.
Tej Azad, Sejal Hathi, Chris Jensen, Daniel Lazzareschi, Nathan Lo, and Rahul Rekhi are current medical students and aspiring policymakers.
References:
[1] Loftin C., McDowall D., Wiersema B., Cottey T.J. "Effects of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide In the District of Columbia." New England Journal of Medicine, 325 (1991): 1615-1620
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199112053252305
[2] Grotophorst, Z., Dumbacher E. "Minding the Leadership Gap: Attracting Millenials to the Federal Government." Government Business Council (GBC) Briefings, March 2012
http://www.govexec.com/gbc/minding-leadership-gap-attracting-millennials-federal-government/41503/
[3] Institute of Politics, Harvard University. "Survey of Young Americans' Attitudes Towards Politics and Public Service: 23rd Edition." Apr. 30th, 2013.
http://www.iop.harvard.edu/institute-politics-spring-2013-poll