In Charleston, S.C., in 1989, police and health officials created a harsh policy that basically equated drug use during pregnancy with child neglect or delivery of drugs to a minor. Of course, the ACLU and other groups were up in arms. When Satel decries affirmative action in medical school admissions, she sounds a typical conservative alarm filled with tautologies presented as stunning conclusions. Then, of course, they do poorly on medical board exams. And she offers without comment the idea that women are not rising more quickly through academic medical ranks because they're taking time off to raise families.
Most reasonable people agree that husbands can and do now shoulder some of that burden.
The thought control Satel is trying to promote seems more dangerous than the wacky ideas of a few public health school faculty members. Satel is trying to wrest control of medicine back from patients, whom she sees as ignoramuses who can't possibly know what's good for them. Big, paternalistic government is bad, according to conservatives, but paternalistic medicine is evidently good, according to Satel, who doesn't seem troubled by the contradiction between diminishing patient autonomy and encouraging patients to take responsibility for their own healthcare. She's arguing for a remarkable sort of paternalism. Cut down the amount of time doctors can spend with patients, who will then run to the Internet for medical advice.