American Journal of Psychotherapy
VOLUME XXIX, NUMBER 4 OCTOBER 1975
EDITORIAL Poison and the United States Public Health Service—A Study of Medical Perversion On September 17th, 1975 the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence heard testimony by Senator Richard S. Schweiker of Pennsylvania to the effect that the "United States Public Health Service was deeply involved in the production of the deadly shellfish poison that the Central Intelligence Agency had been storing for the last six years despite a Presidential order that biochemical weapons be destroyed." Senator Schweiker properly called this a "perversion of the Public Health Service. As reported in The New York Times of September 18, a spokesman for the Public Health Service confirmed before the Senate hearing that his agency had provided raw toxin to the Army, which in turn had done more laboratory work in preparing the poison as a weapon. "Indeed, the Public Health spokesman testified, "this would be an improper role for the Public Health Service in 1975. But at the time we were involved, national policy recognized the development of chemical and biological weaponry and as a Federal agency we had a role. As a consequence of the Public Health Serviced diligence in the poison market, large amounts of shellfish toxin were accumulated and retained by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Army, even though the Presidential order of November 1969 ordered a halt to the development of biologic and chemical weapons and the destruction of existing stockpiles. The Central Intelligence Agency alone had retained 10.972 grams of shellfish poison, an amount sufficient to kill at least 14,000 persons. The Army retained a suppjly of 2.807 grams, an amount estimated as being sufficient to kill up to 55
55
55
Assuming that The New York Times article was a reliable summary of what had occurred at the Senate hearing, a federal health agency, by its 463
464
AMERICAN
JOURNAL
OF PSYCHOTHERAPY
own admission, was involved in the development, and supply to other government agencies, of large quantities of an extremely lethal poison. This act constitutes a major, shameful, and dangerous perversion of the 2,500year-old medical code of ethics. The position that it was legal and therefore moral for a public health organization to be purveyors of deadly substances that could be used for mass murder is unsatisfactory and an insult to all health scientists. This type of rationalization represents the epitome of ugliness and immorality, a type of thinking that we have come to associate with many large organizations. A hierarchically ordered governmental agency that justifies its role i n potential mass murder on such a flimsy, legalistic basis follows a type of logic that smacks of the Nazi defense at the Nuremberg trials. Where is the moral license for a health organization, public or private, to produce large amounts of toxin that theoretically could be used for the purpose of murdering enormous numbers of unsuspecting humans? Where is the moral license for a health agency to deliberately circumvent traditions that have been the cornerstone of the medical profession for two-anda-half millenia? We are terrified by the philosophy that a governmental health agency would surreptitiously develop potentially homicidal weapons just because other government agencies were involved. There is no meaningful, dependable medical science i n the absence of a code of ethics that is dedicated purely and simply to the preservation of health and life. I t would appear that the Public Health Service does not recognize this medical ethic or feels that it is above it. The medical code is one which dictates that the individual physician has the specific obligation to defend and if possible to improve the physical and psychologic well-being of every human being. For untold generations, we have attempted to indivisibly incorporate this ethic into all who would become medical doctors. Any health scientists who use positions of trust to actually or even potentially harm individuals or groups shame all of us and identify themselves as enemies of mankind. For more then a decade, we have repeatedly pointed out, almost ad nauseam, that large organizations, whether they are public or private i n nature, are usually a law unto themselves. The actions of the United States Public Health Service once again point up the fact that there is no humanistic moral plan binding the actions of large organizations. "Huge, hierarchically ordered institutions live by the edict that 'success is good, failure is evil, and there is no immorality unless a venture ends in failure.' . . . Good represents the fulfillment of a contract by any or all means; evil represents failure. The greatest of all evils is being caught using illicit techniques" (Editorial, October 1974). The moral crime perpetuated by the United States Public Health Service is a crime against humanity and stains
EDITORIAL
465
| the jionor of every physician. I t cannot go unchallenged. I t must not be repeated. We submit that those persons employed directly or indirectly by the United States Public Health Service who were involved i n this situation are unfit to hold positions of medical or public trust. They should be exposed before the people they were supposed to serve and should be removed from their research or administrative offices. This crime is of such a nature that the entire Public Health Service should be investigated. I t should be replaced by a humanistically oriented institution that is completely redesigned from the Surgeon General's office down. To those who feel that we are making much ado about nothing, we ask whether governmental organizations such as the Public Health Service and even its parent organization, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, can be trusted with the administration of a universal health system that is likely to be voted into law i n the not too distant future. Are organizations such as these fit to set and supervise a professional standards review organization? The American Journal of Psychotherapy and its parent organization, the Association for the Advancement of Psychotherapy, will formally request other health science organizations to join us i n an intensive campaign to inculcate traditional humanistic morality and ethics into public health organizations. We invite all individuals working i n the health sciences to write to us directly i n support of this campaign. I t is imperative that our views be heard i n the appropriate legislative and executive branches of government so that there might be improvements in design and function i n all health science organizations administered or supported by the government. STANLEY LESSE, M . D .
I
VOLUME XXIX, NUMBER 4 OCTOBER 1975
EDITORIAL Poison and the United States Public Health Service—A Study of Medical Perversion On September 17th, 1975 the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence heard testimony by Senator Richard S. Schweiker of Pennsylvania to the effect that the "United States Public Health Service was deeply involved in the production of the deadly shellfish poison that the Central Intelligence Agency had been storing for the last six years despite a Presidential order that biochemical weapons be destroyed." Senator Schweiker properly called this a "perversion of the Public Health Service. As reported in The New York Times of September 18, a spokesman for the Public Health Service confirmed before the Senate hearing that his agency had provided raw toxin to the Army, which in turn had done more laboratory work in preparing the poison as a weapon. "Indeed, the Public Health spokesman testified, "this would be an improper role for the Public Health Service in 1975. But at the time we were involved, national policy recognized the development of chemical and biological weaponry and as a Federal agency we had a role. As a consequence of the Public Health Serviced diligence in the poison market, large amounts of shellfish toxin were accumulated and retained by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Army, even though the Presidential order of November 1969 ordered a halt to the development of biologic and chemical weapons and the destruction of existing stockpiles. The Central Intelligence Agency alone had retained 10.972 grams of shellfish poison, an amount sufficient to kill at least 14,000 persons. The Army retained a suppjly of 2.807 grams, an amount estimated as being sufficient to kill up to 55
55
55
Assuming that The New York Times article was a reliable summary of what had occurred at the Senate hearing, a federal health agency, by its 463
464
AMERICAN
JOURNAL
OF PSYCHOTHERAPY
own admission, was involved in the development, and supply to other government agencies, of large quantities of an extremely lethal poison. This act constitutes a major, shameful, and dangerous perversion of the 2,500year-old medical code of ethics. The position that it was legal and therefore moral for a public health organization to be purveyors of deadly substances that could be used for mass murder is unsatisfactory and an insult to all health scientists. This type of rationalization represents the epitome of ugliness and immorality, a type of thinking that we have come to associate with many large organizations. A hierarchically ordered governmental agency that justifies its role i n potential mass murder on such a flimsy, legalistic basis follows a type of logic that smacks of the Nazi defense at the Nuremberg trials. Where is the moral license for a health organization, public or private, to produce large amounts of toxin that theoretically could be used for the purpose of murdering enormous numbers of unsuspecting humans? Where is the moral license for a health agency to deliberately circumvent traditions that have been the cornerstone of the medical profession for two-anda-half millenia? We are terrified by the philosophy that a governmental health agency would surreptitiously develop potentially homicidal weapons just because other government agencies were involved. There is no meaningful, dependable medical science i n the absence of a code of ethics that is dedicated purely and simply to the preservation of health and life. I t would appear that the Public Health Service does not recognize this medical ethic or feels that it is above it. The medical code is one which dictates that the individual physician has the specific obligation to defend and if possible to improve the physical and psychologic well-being of every human being. For untold generations, we have attempted to indivisibly incorporate this ethic into all who would become medical doctors. Any health scientists who use positions of trust to actually or even potentially harm individuals or groups shame all of us and identify themselves as enemies of mankind. For more then a decade, we have repeatedly pointed out, almost ad nauseam, that large organizations, whether they are public or private i n nature, are usually a law unto themselves. The actions of the United States Public Health Service once again point up the fact that there is no humanistic moral plan binding the actions of large organizations. "Huge, hierarchically ordered institutions live by the edict that 'success is good, failure is evil, and there is no immorality unless a venture ends in failure.' . . . Good represents the fulfillment of a contract by any or all means; evil represents failure. The greatest of all evils is being caught using illicit techniques" (Editorial, October 1974). The moral crime perpetuated by the United States Public Health Service is a crime against humanity and stains
EDITORIAL
465
| the jionor of every physician. I t cannot go unchallenged. I t must not be repeated. We submit that those persons employed directly or indirectly by the United States Public Health Service who were involved i n this situation are unfit to hold positions of medical or public trust. They should be exposed before the people they were supposed to serve and should be removed from their research or administrative offices. This crime is of such a nature that the entire Public Health Service should be investigated. I t should be replaced by a humanistically oriented institution that is completely redesigned from the Surgeon General's office down. To those who feel that we are making much ado about nothing, we ask whether governmental organizations such as the Public Health Service and even its parent organization, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, can be trusted with the administration of a universal health system that is likely to be voted into law i n the not too distant future. Are organizations such as these fit to set and supervise a professional standards review organization? The American Journal of Psychotherapy and its parent organization, the Association for the Advancement of Psychotherapy, will formally request other health science organizations to join us i n an intensive campaign to inculcate traditional humanistic morality and ethics into public health organizations. We invite all individuals working i n the health sciences to write to us directly i n support of this campaign. I t is imperative that our views be heard i n the appropriate legislative and executive branches of government so that there might be improvements in design and function i n all health science organizations administered or supported by the government. STANLEY LESSE, M . D .
I
