CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 149,769
- 73,421
- 2,330
I was worried for a second that only elderly white people were going to be subject to Emanuel's Competitive Effective Council to Build a Superrace of Illegal Alien Dem Voters, but I was relieved to learn that Emanuel has it in for blacks as well.
I found the following response to an Emanuel review of the book "Medical Aparthaid" by the author.
Do you see why Obama wanted to isolate Emanuel, Holdren and the other Euthanasists and Eugenicists from public scrutiny by simply making them Czars?
Harriet Washington responds to Ezekiel Emanuels (egregious) review
The New York Times
Medical Apartheid
Published: March 18, 2007
To the Editor:
In 15 chapters and 501 well-annotated pages, my book Medical Apartheid offers a careful, nuanced discussion of trends, cases, problems, ethics and persistent patterns in the disparate treatment of black research subjects. However, Ezekiel Emanuels review (Feb. 18) ignores its rich content in order to claim that Medical Apartheid fails to place the experience of African-Americans in context. He dramatically misrepresents the work within an untrustworthy review that is rife with distortions, contradictions, errors, exaggerations and confusions.
Emanuels own troubling research agenda, elements of which I criticize in Medical Apartheid, may be pertinent. He champions such dubious policies as offering undue inducement to poor people and offering research subjects in developing countries inferior medications and standards of protection.
I have been allotted 650 words, insufficient for a point-by-point refutation, so Ill address a smattering of his many mischaracterizations and errors.
Emanuel ignores how consistently Medical Apartheid quantifies my statements about the disproportionate use of blacks in abusive medical research. For example, researchers own statements reveal that the experimental development of gynecologic surgeries like Caesarian section, vesicovaginal fistula repair and ovariotomy were perfected almost exclusively using enslaved black women. The disproportionate theft of black cadavers was validated by records and events like the 1989 discovery of 9,800 bones, 75 percent from blacks, in the basement of the Medical College of Georgias former anatomical laboratory. Dr. Eugene Saengers fatal radiation experiments in 1950s Cincinnati were performed on a subject pool that was 75 percent black. The subjects of many other radiation experiments were all black, like the patients at Dooley and St. Phillip hospitals in Virginia who were intentionally given third-degree radiation burns by scientists for investigational purposes. By 1983, 43 percent of women sterilized by federally funded eugenic programs were black. Approximately 80 percent of the boys in the 1970s Baltimore XYY studies were black, as were nearly all of the children in that citys KKI lead study. Every boy in a 1990s New York City fenfluramine experiment was black.
Medical treatment and public-health initiatives can also constitute medical research. Emanuel disingenuously writes as if an initiative must be either one or the other in order to accuse me of conflation. Despite Emanuels bewildering claim to the contrary, the Black Stork chapter does focus heavily upon medical research, including racialized studies that fueled involuntary sterilizations, Norplant and Depo-Provera investigations, research distortions that created the myth of the crack baby, and nonconsensual research with pregnant black South Carolina women.
Far from castigating directly observed therapy for tuberculosis, I lament that it is too often eschewed in favor of imprisonment. Thalidomide is indeed being given to black women subjects in Africa, and researchers fear that its presence in semen may make its use in men hazardous. Despite Emanuels assertion, the book is supported by a plethora of notes filling 50 pages.
Emanuels tenuous grasp of history is typified by his non-exculpatory focus on tangential, oft-told events and by the errors crammed into the single sentence with which he attempts to reconstruct the U.S.P.H.S. Study of Syphilis in the Untreated Negro Male. The men first were denied Salvarsan, not only penicillin; a significant minority obtained treatment; the studys goals included not only observation but also a validation of a racially dimorphic progression of syphilis and diagnostic refinements. Researchers goals could not be accomplished without autopsy, and so were not achieved before death.
He falsely claims that for Washington, the answer comes down to one thing: skin color. Actually, I describe a terrible confluence of factors that changed over time, including a precise variant, scientific racism. My discussion of factors that tempered or trumped racism includes economics, politics, utilitarianism, communitarianism, black complicity, white beneficence, forbidden knowledge, deontological frameworks and social-justice issues. Emanuels failure to acknowledge these sophisticated arguments is a startling omission. Perhaps he is interested only in silencing them.
Harriet A. Washington
Chicago
I found the following response to an Emanuel review of the book "Medical Aparthaid" by the author.
Do you see why Obama wanted to isolate Emanuel, Holdren and the other Euthanasists and Eugenicists from public scrutiny by simply making them Czars?
Harriet Washington responds to Ezekiel Emanuels (egregious) review
The New York Times
Medical Apartheid
Published: March 18, 2007
To the Editor:
In 15 chapters and 501 well-annotated pages, my book Medical Apartheid offers a careful, nuanced discussion of trends, cases, problems, ethics and persistent patterns in the disparate treatment of black research subjects. However, Ezekiel Emanuels review (Feb. 18) ignores its rich content in order to claim that Medical Apartheid fails to place the experience of African-Americans in context. He dramatically misrepresents the work within an untrustworthy review that is rife with distortions, contradictions, errors, exaggerations and confusions.
Emanuels own troubling research agenda, elements of which I criticize in Medical Apartheid, may be pertinent. He champions such dubious policies as offering undue inducement to poor people and offering research subjects in developing countries inferior medications and standards of protection.
I have been allotted 650 words, insufficient for a point-by-point refutation, so Ill address a smattering of his many mischaracterizations and errors.
Emanuel ignores how consistently Medical Apartheid quantifies my statements about the disproportionate use of blacks in abusive medical research. For example, researchers own statements reveal that the experimental development of gynecologic surgeries like Caesarian section, vesicovaginal fistula repair and ovariotomy were perfected almost exclusively using enslaved black women. The disproportionate theft of black cadavers was validated by records and events like the 1989 discovery of 9,800 bones, 75 percent from blacks, in the basement of the Medical College of Georgias former anatomical laboratory. Dr. Eugene Saengers fatal radiation experiments in 1950s Cincinnati were performed on a subject pool that was 75 percent black. The subjects of many other radiation experiments were all black, like the patients at Dooley and St. Phillip hospitals in Virginia who were intentionally given third-degree radiation burns by scientists for investigational purposes. By 1983, 43 percent of women sterilized by federally funded eugenic programs were black. Approximately 80 percent of the boys in the 1970s Baltimore XYY studies were black, as were nearly all of the children in that citys KKI lead study. Every boy in a 1990s New York City fenfluramine experiment was black.
Medical treatment and public-health initiatives can also constitute medical research. Emanuel disingenuously writes as if an initiative must be either one or the other in order to accuse me of conflation. Despite Emanuels bewildering claim to the contrary, the Black Stork chapter does focus heavily upon medical research, including racialized studies that fueled involuntary sterilizations, Norplant and Depo-Provera investigations, research distortions that created the myth of the crack baby, and nonconsensual research with pregnant black South Carolina women.
Far from castigating directly observed therapy for tuberculosis, I lament that it is too often eschewed in favor of imprisonment. Thalidomide is indeed being given to black women subjects in Africa, and researchers fear that its presence in semen may make its use in men hazardous. Despite Emanuels assertion, the book is supported by a plethora of notes filling 50 pages.
Emanuels tenuous grasp of history is typified by his non-exculpatory focus on tangential, oft-told events and by the errors crammed into the single sentence with which he attempts to reconstruct the U.S.P.H.S. Study of Syphilis in the Untreated Negro Male. The men first were denied Salvarsan, not only penicillin; a significant minority obtained treatment; the studys goals included not only observation but also a validation of a racially dimorphic progression of syphilis and diagnostic refinements. Researchers goals could not be accomplished without autopsy, and so were not achieved before death.
He falsely claims that for Washington, the answer comes down to one thing: skin color. Actually, I describe a terrible confluence of factors that changed over time, including a precise variant, scientific racism. My discussion of factors that tempered or trumped racism includes economics, politics, utilitarianism, communitarianism, black complicity, white beneficence, forbidden knowledge, deontological frameworks and social-justice issues. Emanuels failure to acknowledge these sophisticated arguments is a startling omission. Perhaps he is interested only in silencing them.
Harriet A. Washington
Chicago
