Talk:C. Everett Koop/Archives/2015

young earth creationism?

A fair number of Christian websites seem to claim that Koop is a Young Earth Creationist. For example, look at Christian Answers.[1] I cannot find any substantial evidence for this, aside from one unattribted quote about looking at the organs in a body during surgery and not thinking there is enough time for organs to form in the body by evolution.[2] Anyone know any more?--Filll 22:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a page that has more information: [3].--Filll 23:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I directed the public affairs for the Senate Labor Committee during Koops confirmation hearings and his service as surgeon general. My recollection -- subject to correction -- is that he was asked one question about evolution in the confirmation process, to which he responded that he had no difficulty with the science position favoring evolution. It was a very short answer to a relative non-issue. The hearings transcripts will be difficult to search, but should be available through most Federal Depository libraries. Edarrell 06:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

vice admiral???

Why is this guy listed as a vice admiral??--Filll 23:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is because he, like all surgeons general, is a commissioned officer in uniformed service. By statute, the surgeons general of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Public Health Service are commissioned officers serving at the O-9 grade. In sea services, the O-9 grade is titled vice admiral. In the land/air services, O-9's are titled lieutenant general. VADM Koop served as the Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.185.6 (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation controversy, and early history, and tobacco

First, I think there should be some mention of the controversy over Koop's nomination to be Surgeon General. Reagan administration officials were quite clear that they favored Koop due to his opposition to abortion. Abortion has very little to do with the day to day duties of the surgeon general, however; but the Democrats (who were in the minority at the Senate Labor Committee) noted an old law that said the Surgeon General had to retire at age 65, and this law had not been superseded by the Age Discrimination Act. Koop was past that age. This held up Koop's confirmation for several months. Ultimately a compromise was worked out; since the Surgeon General's office had little to do with abortion, Koop offered an answer at the confirmation hearing that he would not use the office as a political platform. The Democrats agreed to amend the law removing the age limitation. Koop was ultimately confirmed. This entire action had been a test of the leadership of the Labor Committee by Sen. Orrin Hatch, who took the gavel from Sen. Ted Kennedy when the political balance in the Senate changed for the session beginning in January 1981. Hatch and Kennedy worked out a relationship that benefited later legislation, in which political considerations would be dealt with behind the scenes, and health issues (and other labor and education issues) would see substantive action rather than being roadblocked in the committee. Some of this is noted here: [4]

Second, this may deserve mention: Among the more famous incidents of Koop's work cited at his confirmation hearings was his campaign against the use of fluoroscopes in the sales of children's shoes. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, children's shoe shops had fluoroscopes installed so that kids and their parents could view the kids' feet in new shoes, ostensibly showing good fit. Koop was shocked at the practice, which exposed people to unnecessary levels of x-rays. The campaign was successful, and the shoe companies took down the machines. See page 4 of this document, the HHS background paper to the Senate Labor Committee in support of Koop's nomination, in 1981: [5]

Third, Koop's suggestions on tobacco warnings on cigarette packages were good ones, but not subject to his jurisdiction alone. The warning notices on cigarette packages are required by law. During the early years of the Reagan administration, this law was up for renewal. Koop urged that labels carry serious health information rather than a general warning. The final solution was the four labels we still see today, to be rotated on a brand's packaging through each year. Koop's office played an important role, but legislation was necessary to change the labels. Here's the NIH official history: [6]

Fourth, Koop's tenure covered the time that HIV/AIDS arose as a public health issue. While the politics of the Reagan administration suggested little support for AIDS research and treatment, and while President Reagan himself had urged hands off the issue, Koop saw AIDS as a serious issue of public health. Koop's even-handed treatment of the information available abotu the disease adn its victims turned the official administration position around, from neglect of the issue to active pursuit of the viruses that cause the syndrome and significant research activities to find treatments and a then-much-hoped-for vaccine. The official NIH history has some details: [7]

Edarrell 07:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Government Service

The subsection here titled "AIDS" was using the phrase "Many were unhappy with the way in which he dealt with gay sex and the risk of infection through anal sexual intercourse but Koop was unapologetic claiming such activities entail risks several orders of magnitude greater than other means of transmission."

A few questions arise here, naturally: Who is "Many"? Why were they "unhappy"? And why did "many" object to Koop's having made a statistical judgement concerning epidemiological vectors? This section seriously non-NPOV, yet is being repeatedly reverted by various users, most recently Ave Ceasar. Ender78 (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are not incompliance with WP:NPOV when they are not cited. When saying "many" the article could very well be referring to homosexuals individuals as well as advocates of the rights belonging to said individuals who do not necessarily hold the same sexual orientation. You simply have not proven that is it is only one group. Provide cites. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree here. If I had used the language "homosexuals" rather than "Gay activists", that would be NPOV. As it was, my first edit used the phrase "Gay Activists and their supporters", (See diff here) which would seem to be consistent with the policy you're trying to hide behind. You reverted that anyway. Do you have anymore policy runaround to make, any more procedural or policy sticks to throw at me before I stop wasting my own time and take the matter directly to RfC or ArbCom? Furthermore, why haven't you Been Bold and adjusted the verbiage appropriately, as I tried to do, rather than simply reverting? Ender78 (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The dispute isn't against the "verbiage." Your choice of terminology is just one small part of everything that's wrong with your edit. You have not provided any citations to back up your claim. Without cites you cannot be specific as to who was offended. You are attempting to say that only one group of people were unhappy yet you cannot back up your claim. See WP:PROVEIT. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bull. (See diff here) in which I use the very language you're now claiming to be most appropriate. Over the river and through the woods, I know my way through the Wiki bureaucracy too. Ender78 (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Again, the biggest problem with your edit is your lack of citation for your claims. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ave Caesar said: "When saying "many" the article could very well be referring to homosexuals individuals as well as advocates of the rights belonging to said individuals who do not necessarily hold the same sexual orientation." Which is fine; I absolutely agree with this, and the last thing I'm trying to do on a Saturday is get into an edit war over a minor article. BUT. I make an edit trying to narrow things down from "Many" to the widest possible group consistent with both NPOV and an absence of weasel words, and one that you're now trying to say is the correct wording, yet you reverted it yourself on the first pass. Why? Ender78 (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely fine with being more specific as to defining "many." However, that's not possible without citations. If you are able to provide cites that say only homosexual/gay people or pro-homosexual straight folks were unhappy then great. Without cites there is, however, no proof as to who was unhappy. Note that you've already stated that you made these edits based on your own personal recollection [8]. The widest possible group would be saying that "most were unhappy" and I'm certainly not arguing for that because that would have to be cited as well. --Ave Caesar (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt statisticians were "unhappy" with Koop's assertions. If Congressmen were upset, we could easily verify this. No, only one group is implicitly identified by the later clauses of the sentence in question. Gay folks are the ones most likely to engage in anal sex specifically to the exclusion of all other methods, and therefore it easily stands to reason that they and their supporters are the only ones who would be "unhappy" with Koop's having singled their group out. Why don't you just admit bad faith reverting and have done with this? Once again, you could've "been bold", and adjusted my language to be consistent with what you claim to be our mutual goals, but it appears you've got an ideological reason for continuing to revert this. Is the solution to simply delete the section altogether? Or would you revert that as well, quoting a different set of policies? Ender78 (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, problem solved with a five-second Google search. Citation supplied for original edit.Ender78 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Much better. See, complying with policies isn't that hard now is it? --Ave Caesar (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Save it, fella. Fact is, the citation was ALREADY in the article before either of us edited it, and even if it weren't, the edit I made was consistent with the actual words of the sentence at hand regardless. Already got a RfC up, that references your relying on spurious policy claims and making personal attacks and appeals to edit frequency. Thanks for wasting my time defending something that made sense regardless of your interpretations of WP policy. Ender78 (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already been watching it - It won't go far. Thanks for mentioning it though. --Ave Caesar (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to watch my contribs. You sound awfully sure that it "won't go far". Perhaps you'd like to explain for the record, again, why you continually reverted the edit in question? Here or there. Your choice. Ender78 (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, the citation in the article does not support the contention that Koop's actions were criticized by the gay community. Their antipathy was with what they saw as President Reagan's non-response to the early AIDS crisis, and evangelicals (like Pat Buchanan) who saw AIDS as God's punishment and called for quarantines. Koop's pamphlet, which outlines safer sex practices, really ticked conservatives off. Koop even went so far as to read passages aloud (including the infamous "the best protection right not, barring abstinence, is the use of a condom") on television. (Personal note: I lived through the era, and went to an AIDS walk which Koop attended. Every gay person I knew thought he was a hero.) I have corrected the wording in the article to bring it more in line with the citation.12.149.100.21 (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Life Alert

Why no mention of his important work with Life Alert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.234.51 (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's there now, although I'm going to go ahead and trim the "soundbite" from it. We all know the LifeAlert commercial with the granny on the floor, we all know the "I've fallen and I can't get up!" line. The line has absolutely no relevance to this entry, so I'm being bold. People seem to try to reference this line in as many places as possible, as part of a running joke.

To be clear: the line has nothing to do with this former SG's work in the LA commercials, and Koop doesn't speak the line in question. Non-relevant. 76.23.90.236 (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"seventeen thousand inguinal hernia repairs"

Surely this is not correct? This would indicated that if he performed one of these surgeries each and every day, he would have performed one every day for 46 1/2 years straight? Did the guy ever get a weekend off? Any sources to this and the statistic that immediately follows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.15.76 (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is possible. How long does it take to perform an inguinal hernia repair? If he did 5 or 10 per hour for 16 hours a day, it would take only a few years. If the patient is all prepped and made ready to go by others, the actual "repair" time probably does not take long. The doctor who performed a colonoscopy on me has been practicing 20 years and estimates he has done about 40,000 of them. Can any medical doctors enlighten us here? Thanks. John Paul Parks (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Latex allergy

I remember Dr. Koop revealing that he was allergic to rubber many years ago in a TV interview (NBC?) does anyone know it? (so that it can be sourced) That would be useful to add and contrast to his stand on the severity of latex allergy he espoused in 1999 [9] -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I just added content about the parts of the latex issue that are reliably sourced.[10] We would need reliable sources to verify that he was allergic to latex. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Years as Surgeon General

Resolved

He was Surgeon General from 1981-1989 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.34.211 (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Although his nomination was confirmed on November 16, 1981, he was not sworn into office until January 21, 1982.[11] You are correct about his final year. He served until October 1, 1989. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Career section and ITN Nomination

I have commented out a rather larger career section which had almost no references--it should be restored when it can be improved. In the meantimes its presence is interfering with a nomination of this item for a front-page In The News listing. μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't belong in the article as-is. I removed it. If reliable sources are found, it can be readded, but it should be condensed. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI Medeis (μηδείς), you should read WP:NLS regarding your signature. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)