At least it’s consistent that no one in this administration should be in it.
I’m not a doctor, but I play one in the United States federal government.
Should a rapist be allowed to run for president?
Add pedophile and felon.
How is she in trumps cabinet without having had facial reconstruction surgery yet? She’s not even blonde for fuck’s sake!
…yet
Medical? Shouldn’t they have surgical experience to boot.
The facts over feelings croud really enjoy having their feelings be reenforced, not being bothered with silly things like facts.
The fuck your feelings crowd loves to mock the “reality-based community”. Which is kind of strange for a set of people that claim to value rationality over being emotional.
She is there for two reasons: Ban abortion and restrict/ban birth control. That’s it.
There are scared absolutely shitless of declining fertility rates.
Jokes on them, I can’t afford a kid if I even wanted one.
laughs in RFK Jr
I’d argue that the surgeon general should have a medical license and at least a decade of two of clinical work, ideally with some administrative experience as well.
However, that would work against the number one requirement for anyone to get a job in this administration: be dumber than President Pedophile.
Be dumber, or a world class ass kisser.
Yes, that ought be a legal-requirement.
in https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/how-not-to-die I discovered that a coroner is a person appointed to decide on cause-of-death, but a medical-examiner is a person with a medical-license who has the authority to decide on cause-of-death.
There’s no requirement for a coroner to be medically competent.
It’s often a political appointee.
That too is a crime against the citizenry & country.
_ /\ _
I think you’re misunderstanding the role of the coroner. The medical examiner looks solely at the corpse to determine cause of death. The coroner examines the broader conditions and circumstances surrounding the death.
To understand the difference in the various investigative roles: The medical examiner can determine that the fatal injury was a hammer impact to the back of the skull. They are not legally qualified to determine whether that hammer was swung, dropped, or thrown. They aren’t even qualified to determine if a particular hammer was the cause of death.
Forensic pathologists can determine the particular hammer, and whether the hammer was swung or thrown. They are not legally qualified to determine who threw it. They are certainly not qualified to determine why it was thrown.
The coroner can determine who did the throwing. They are not legally qualified to determine whether the act of throwing the hammer was justified or criminal. (If it was thrown to stop the deceased from attacking a victim, for example. The coroner is not qualified to make this determination.)
The trial court can legally determine that the hammer was thrown with intent to kill. The criminal trial court can determine if that intention was justified or not; whether the defendant committed a crime. The civil trial court can determine how much harm the victim’s family has suffered.
Another example, this time drawn from real life: in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, the medical examiner can determine that the deceased died from smoke inhalation. The medical examiner cannot determine who is responsible for the fire. The coroner can call for an inquest. They can convene a jury. And they can legally determine that responsibility for the fire lies with the owners.
There is no particular need for a coroner to be medically licensed, provided they are not personally expected to perform an autopsy. Where they are not medically licensed, they cannot conduct their own autopsies, and must instead rely on medical examiners for that one small piece of evidence.
It would be more appropriate for a coroner to be licensed to practice law, rather than medicine.
I really enjoyed how well you explained this, as someone without any understanding or exposure to this stuff I feel like I came away from it with a broad surface level understanding that made coherent sense. You articulate things really well.
Thank you!
I should stress that my explanation is a gross simplification, and some of my examples might be a little off. Further, the specific role varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
The key takeaway: The role of the coroner is (generally) closer to that of the prosecutor than it is to that of the medical examiner.
Why bother with such reality-based things when we have people voting based on vibes for people that have run their whole lives based on vibes?
Actually, I think this is unimportant. It’s not that she isn’t a medical doctor, but rather that she let her license lapse because it wasn’t necessary for the things she was doing.
There are plenty of other reasons she is a bad choice, this is just a distraction.
Yeah but they aren’t actually a General either, so it is only fair to not have to be a Surgeon.
I’m sure you’re joking, but it’s Surgeon General is to Army General because general in both contexts means “Not limited in scope, area, or application.” (cf “General strike” or “General paralysis of the body”).
Ironically, the U.S. Surgeon General is not an army officer. The position carries the naval rank of Vice Admiral because it originated in the marines.
