Doctors Playing in Political Arena: The Wrong Prescription?

For physicians, does the Hippocratic Oath's injunction to "first, do no harm" also extend to the realm of politics?

The question is being debated in medical circles after several prominent doctors have spoken out on medical issues related to Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee.

One of them, Dr. John Alam, a licensed physician who is the former executive vice president of Vertex Pharmaceuticals, used his medical expertise to comment on McCain's health in a most public way.

In a letter published in this week's issue of the medical journal The Lancet, Alam wrote that the 72-year-old Republican's death risk is 12 percent for the next two years, after his battle with melanoma in 2000.

Basing his analysis on the health summaries released by the McCain campaign in May as well as a 1996 study of the rate of survival for patients with melanoma in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Alam told ABCNews.com that he believes the American people should be informed about the candidates' health and that his research has nothing to do with his own political affiliation.

A registered Democrat, Alam has contributed the maximum amount of financial support to both the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee – all of which he disclosed in the footnotes of his letter.

But Alam argues that his vote on Election Day has nothing to do with his examination of McCain's medical records and that there is no political motivation behind his research.

"My intention was not to imply not to vote for McCain but was to put the facts [about his health] on the table," said Alam.

"Am I an Obama supporter? Absolutely," said Alam. "But I went about this analysis in an objective way without knowing what the answer would be before I began."

Alam said that he did not begin his research until September – four months after McCain's health summary was released – in hopes that someone else would delve deeper into the senator's death risk before he felt obligated to.

He added that while many people were criticizing the McCain campaign for not releasing enough information about the senator's medical history, he found that they had given the public enough to determine exactly what his risk would be of death should he be elected.

But Alam's method of research – as well as his outspoken political beliefs – has rankled some medical professionals, who say they believe medicine and politics don't mix.

Medical Profession Should Be Nonpartisan, Docs Say

Dr. Darrell Rigel, a clinical professor of dermatology at New York University Medical Center, says that not only is Alam's research faulty, but the pharmaceuticals executive was also wrong to publicly endorse one candidate over another rather than simply speaking more generally about melanoma risks.

According to Rigel, Alam did his research as if McCain were diagnosed with melanoma today, rather than eight-and-a-half years ago.

"The issue is that when he was first diagnosed with melanoma, he had about a 30 percent chance of dying in five years," said Rigel, who has done his own research at NYU on the risks of death associated with melanoma. "But he is eight-plus years out, and most of his risk [over 98 percent] is gone."

Rigel said that 95 percent of the risk of dying of melanoma cases like McCain's disappears after five years, and 99 percent is gone after ten.

Page
  • 1
  • |
  • 2
Join the Discussion
You are using an outdated version of Internet Explorer. Please click here to upgrade your browser in order to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
You Might Also Like...