Talk:United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps

message: Would one who holds a Bachelor's degree in Veterinary Technology be eligeble to be in the Corps?
*Check their WebsiteKeeperoftheseal 04:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veterinary Technician 

message: See the note I left on the other talk page. — MrDolomite | Talk 02:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: USPHS vs. PHSCC?

message: Are USPHS (and NOAA) commissioned officers subject to the UCMJ, such as when they are working for the Coast Guard?--MarshallStack 17:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: USPHS and NOAA commissioned officers are not subject to the UCMJ except when assigned to a DoD or Coast Guard unit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.72.132.157 (talk) 21:17, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 
Commissioned officers of both the Public Health Service and the Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration can be placed under the jurisdiction of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) when so prescribed by Executive Order of the President. With respect to the Public Health Service, the legal statutory authority of Presidential power as granted under Title 42 resides with the Assistant Secretary of Health (ASH). It is possible that the ASH may so prescribe as this authority is granted him/her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.162.30 (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are they subject to the UCMJ? 

message: The title Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is NOT correct. The correct title as found in most documentation today is the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service (Corps). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.162.30 (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PHSCC Title Not Correct 

message: One must consider the time era in which the Commissioned Corps of the Marine-Hospital Service, later the Public Health and Marine-Hospital and finally Public Health Service was formed. Woodworth was following a commonly held model of military control following the civil war. In fact many organizations following the Civil War used the military model--the most successful that comes to mind is the Union Pacific Railroad. The Union Pacific Railroad used such military minds as William Sherman, who had association with Woodworth, and General Dodge, and many other military men. Union Pacific used military structure to complete the transcontinental railroad, but not placing people in uniform.
Woodworth also had to use the military model because of competition for resources with Dr. John Shaw Billings. Billings was successful in organizing the National Board of Health, which directly competed for funding and jurisdiction with the Marine-Hospital Service. What is most intersting about the composition of the National Board of Health is that it had representitives from all of the War Department, plus one representative from the Marine-Hospital Service. Shaw's success did not last, as the National Board of Health failed and full jurisdiction was later passed to the Marine-Hospital Service in 1884.
:today it may look a bit bizarre to organize just such a part of the public administration as a formal military organization, but in fact also in europe military had an huge influence on the administration. Also (higher rank) civil servants wore uniforms, with rapier. There were civil guards with military status, and Gendarmerie Type forces that belonged to the military - some exist still today as part of the military. And also red cross and civil protection corps are organized in a military manner. Austrian constitution (1920) eg. uses the term "guard body" to describe police forces with military organization - Austria introduced the civil "inspector" (NCO) rank but there are still COs with normal military ranks. And there are civil servants - and some years ago they also got the right to wear uniforms. Military organiziations had a huge prestige in the 19th and also large parts of the 20th century - also paramilitary organizations were then popular ... Nazis marching through the central park, but there were paramilitary organizations in many countries, the Heimwehren in Austria eg. ... the europeans learned their lesson 1945 and I think the US even later, with the "lost" corean war and the vietnam war. Germany had a federal police force, Bundesgrenzschutz, that was gradually demilitarized until today, lost the combatant status, was renamed "Bundespolizei" (federal police). Meanwhile, there is a trend in the opposite direction with militarization of police forces with an "antiterror" label - so the naval branch of the federal police got cannons again, against terrorists - and maybe a not so friendly country in the baltic sea. So, there is a polarity between military style organisation or "troops" and civil administration that originated in the justice and fiscal administration - see also the term "Polizeiwissenschaft". And in the US, as known to me, there are reservations against to much federal public administration - big "feds" are not popular neither in the 19th nor the 21th century. But military organizations, "troops", are part of the jurisdiction of the president of the United States. So military control and military style administration was a common concept in the 19th century and even later on, while conflicting with the principle of civil organization and control. But this seems to be a dynamic conflict. In Europe, public health services were developed as civil administration evolved, but neither Germany nor Austria - federal republics like the US - do have a federal service like the US, but federal authorities and institutions - the public health services is a matter of the member states. The US way may be unique, but considering the historical,political and legal circumstances, it is an interesting and logical solution Rabauz (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early History of the Commissioned Corps 

message: The Commissioned Corps of the United States Public Health Service (Corps) initially wore Navy uniforms from the 1890's through the 1920's. By 1922, the Corps started to wear Army Olive Drab uniforms, then by 1937, the uniforms were mixed between both Army and Navy uniforms. During World War II, officers wore the Army uniform for land based activities, with the most noted exception for officers assigned to the Washington Headquarters Service--which wore Navy style uniforms (in reality these were Coast Guard uniforms, which were Navy uniforms), and for those assigned to sea duty and with the Navy and Coast Guard, the officers wore the Navy style uniforms. Following the close of World War II and the demilitarization of the Corps with the close of the Korean Conflict, officers started to wear the Navy Uniform, which as previously mentioned was authorized by an amendment to the Public Health Service uniform regulations to allow the Surgeon General to prescribe the Coast Guard Uniform in 1942 (see Moment In Time on the Commissioned Corps Management Information System Web Page). (Coast Guard wore Navy uniforms until about 1970 when the Coasties started to wear a uniform which was similiar if not identical to the Air Force Uniform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.162.30 (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Note on Uniforms 

message: The link goes to the General Sherman tree and NOT General Sherman! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.162.30 (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix the Link to Sherman 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925193316/http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000802----000-.html to http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000802----000-.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why isn't there any mention of the violation of human rights committed by the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, such as the Tuskegee syphilis conspiracy, where they deliberately chose not to inform black men that they were infected with syphilis, and did not offer them cures, in order to study it's effect on untreated black adult men, for 40 years, until a whistleblower released documents proving the conspiracy to the press? Who removed that from here? Who authorized that? It used to list that. Who is behind this lie? This level of omission is a lie. 47.147.179.73 (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's covered at United States Public Health Service#Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male, which is where is should be. BilCat (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

text: I've also looked through this article's history, and can find no evidence that it was ever removed from this article. However, I didn't read every diff as I'm sure you did before making the very severe accusation of lying. I suspect you confused the USPHS Commissioned Corps with its parent body, United States Public Health Service, which was responsible for the Tuskegee experiment. Note that there is currently no mention of the PHSCC in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study article. If you have evidence that members of the PHSCC were involved, please cite the sources, and add it to the articles. BilCat (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuskegee syphilis study conspiracy crime is missing from the page?