Physicians Just Do Not Trust the Government Anymore

Brian Alexander is an extraordinary writer and in his latest piece for Glamour he tells the story of the profound mistrust physicians now have in the U.S. government:

For the past 15 years, Ruth Shaber, M.D., has been an ob-gyn in San Francisco for Kaiser Permanente, one of the nation's largest health maintenance organizations. She sees all types of women—union members, executives, waitresses. Most of them, Dr. Shaber says, have questions for her, including how to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases, how to preserve their fertility, how to prevent breast and cervical cancer and whether the latest Internet health scare they've heard is really true.

Dr. Shaber tries hard to separate fact from fiction because, she says, "rumor and hearsay can start to seem real." In the past, she'd sometimes refer patients to government websites and printed fact sheets, or rely on those outlets to help create her own materials. Not anymore. "As a physician, I can no longer trust government sources," says Dr. Shaber. She is not a political activist or a conspiracy theorist; in addition to her own practice, she's Kaiser Permanente's director of women's health services for northern California and head of the HMO's Women's Health Research Institute. Yet this decidedly mainstream doctor and administrator says, "I no longer trust FDA decisions or materials generated [by the government]. Ten years ago, I would not have had to scrutinize government information. Now I don't feel comfortable giving it to my patients."

Such doctor mistrust represents a major change. For the past 100 years, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been the world's premier government agency ensuring drug safety. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have similarly stellar track records. But recently, Dr. Shaber charges, the government has lost its most precious asset: credibility.

How did it happen? Many prominent figures in science and public health think they know the answer. "People believe that religiously based social conservatives have direct lines to the powers that be within the U.S. government, the administration, Congress, and are influencing public-health policy, practice and research in ways that are unprecedented and very dangerous," says Judith Auerbach, Ph.D., a former NIH official who is now a vice president at the nonprofit American Foundation for AIDS Research. In fact, Glamour, has found that on issues ranging from STDs to birth control, some radical conservative activists have used fudged and sometimes flatly false data to persuade the government to promote their agenda of abstinence until marriage. The fallout: Young women now read false data on government websites, learn bogus information in federally funded sex-education programs and struggle to get safe, legal contraceptives—all of which, critics argue, may put them at greater risk for unplanned pregnancies and STDs.

posted Apr 28, 2006 | link | jump to the comments (11)

comments

There should be examples of the "false" and "bogus" information that has this physician so upset that the stellar medical and scientific journal Glamour finds it necessary to report. Will the abstract be published in Cosmo and Redbook?
On the other hand, Science published falsified data and promoted a nearly 2 year hoax on cloning.

- by Beverly on Apr 28, 2006 at 12:12 PM | link

The article is about perception and I think is right on target. Science and religlious values are no longer perceived as separate. Like it or not, this does affect the level of trust not only of J.Q. Public but also people in their professional capacities.

- by Sheila on Apr 28, 2006 at 12:18 PM | link

@ Beverly: I agree that examples would be illustrative but your second comment is a strawman argument.
Science did not knowingly publish falsified data and it retracted it when it was revealed. That is qualitatively different from the deliberate politicisation of health and science policy by a government heavily influenced by conservative religious dogma.
Regards,
Michael Tam

- by Michael Tam on Apr 28, 2006 at 1:21 PM | link

I'm no fan of the religious nuts, but blaming this on them is nuts. Show me the evidence, For crying out loud! Especially in an article related to Science!
Perhaps the true reason FDA has lost credibility is the overwhelming beaurocracy and politics, not to mention pandering to special interest on _all_ political spectrums.
By making claims like this withough backing it with evidence, you are only forwarding more leftist propaganda.

- by Josh on Apr 28, 2006 at 2:34 PM | link

This seems like a huge generalization. A bit of anecdotal evidence that "all" doctors may not agree with the government on abortion/STD issues (which seem to be more of a cultural/moral issue with most people than a medical issue).
I guess this means they're at odds on cancer, broke bones, etc? This title is very misleading.

- by matt on Apr 28, 2006 at 3:54 PM | link

I agree with Josh that all science seems to have become politicized.
I disagree with Michael on Science magazine's efforts being a strawman.
Certainly the Korean government (its scientists and university) are in question of their integrity. And many scientists if not Science magazine were part of the effort to ally themselves with the Great Stem Cell Hub leader.

- by robert b on Apr 28, 2006 at 4:20 PM | link

To weigh in from a differing perspective: a number (though not all) of us who study public opinion and healthcare policy at state and local levels have begun to compile data that (in preliminary analysis) shows an emerging trend that "J.Q. Public" does not trust either local, state, or federal departments of health to either 1) know their health needs or 2) offer unbiased correct information on contentious health issues (primarily sexual health or influenza).
It is not only that physicians do not trust the government's intentions and information wholeheartedly as they once may have, but healthcare consumers may no longer trust in the government either.
Evidence from a variety of sources suggests that government credibility is declining.
What is scary about this post is that "Glamour" is in the running to fill in the spaces that remain.

- by Sara on Apr 28, 2006 at 9:41 PM | link

I seem to remember Ellen Goodman complaining about this. She said that conservatives were lying to kids and telling them that nonmonogamous sex could lead to cancer. Apparently she had never heard of the HPV/cervical cancer connection. If this is the kind of lying that conservatives are doing, I can't get that upset about it.

- by Laura(southernxyl) on Apr 28, 2006 at 11:14 PM | link

Dr. Shaber is a prominent member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.
Read "not a political activist" with that in mind, and the rest of the article with that deception in mind.

- by Thomas on Apr 29, 2006 at 1:16 AM | link

I don't think the FDA and other government institutions in the US are so corrupt as this report would seem to suggest. It's very...overdramatic. In some cases, such as the clearly narrow minded and ridiculous postition that the Bush administration has adopted on things like abstinence only education for sex ed, there is some solid reason to look again at certain data.
It's a bit of a leap to say the entire FDA/CDC etc have lost credibility.

- by Joseph O'Donnell on Apr 29, 2006 at 1:54 PM | link

Thomas is right about the referenced doctor's biases. Anyone who reads the Kaiser report - or for that matter has been following Glamour magazine - know that there is a definite pro-abortion-rights slant to both. The Kaiser reproductive health and women's health reports frequently have protests about limits and even comments on this administration's policies, in particular.

- by Beverly on Apr 30, 2006 at 12:19 PM | link