RFK Jr.’s Measles Policy: Deaths Are Expected And It’s The Victim’s Fault

from the tiny-little-coffins dept

I’ve ranted and raved enough about how RFK Jr. and his Health and Human Services department are completely fucking up the response to the current measles outbreak enough that I’m confident you all don’t need me to rehash the entire thing in this opening. We can leave it at this: we’re probably going to lose our measles elimination status under Kennedy’s watch, Kennedy is an anti-vaxxer no matter how much he attempts to state otherwise, his advice for alternative therapies and/or that everyone should just get measles are bullshit, and he has a habit of victim-blaming those who get measles to boot.

It’s that last bit that’s most important here. The post I linked to is one in which Kennedy claims that malnutrition is to blame for serious outcomes from measles infections. But he’s said so much more on the topic, including in a March interview on Fox News.

“It’s very, very difficult for measles to kill a healthy person,” Kennedy falsely said during a March Fox Nation interview. “We see a correlation between people who get hurt by measles and people who don’t have good nutrition or who don’t have a good exercise regime.” Coupled with his disturbing statements on autism and long-standing belief that vaccinations cause the condition, Kennedy is circling a dark idea: that the value of one’s life can be tabulated in accordance with diagnoses and preexisting conditions. Since his appointment as secretary of health and human services (HHS), he has pursued a brutal vision of American health that several experts liken to a sort of eugenics. Kennedy has made it clear that certain deaths are acceptable or even preferable to a world where every child is vaccinated.

“There’s a sort of Darwin-esque notion that only the fittest survive,” says Paul Offit, a vaccine scientist, virologist, and professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “But these viruses can kill anybody, so that’s just wrong.” In the recent deaths, the first from measles in a decade, no underlying medication conditions have been reported. Both of the Texas children were reportedly healthy before they contracted measles. They could have stayed that way.

Now, here’s where I have to be very careful about stating that this is an opinion piece in which I will draw conclusions based on Kennedy’s words and actions, along with the analysis in that post from The Verge. Why? Because of this following statement.

Alluding to survival of the fittest on its own is already a problematic stance to take when we’re talking about a disease that has already resulted in two tiny little coffins made to fit for children. It’s already problematic because it’s also just fucking wrong; otherwise fit people have gotten severely sick and died from this outbreak. But if you couple the “survival of the fittest” stance with the “everyone should just get infected to gain immunity stance,” what you have is a combined policy that is tolerant of many unnecessary deaths and major illness in people whom Kennedy says are deficient in some way, and that is damned close to a policy of eugenics.

The underlying message of Kennedy’s campaign is that measles deaths are expected and admissible, because the people who don’t survive the disease were flawed anyway, says Laura Appleman, a professor of law at Willamette University in Oregon. Kennedy has talked up the “measles parties” of past decades — discounting that sometimes those parties proved deadly. “I think there’s a real subtext here saying that, ‘no, that’s ok, because in the old days the ones who survived were the strong ones,’” she adds.

Appleman has studied and written about the history of eugenics in the U.S., in the context of the criminal justice system, as well as that of public health and the covid-19 pandemic. The current rhetoric coming from Kennedy is an amplification of what’s long persisted in American culture and politics, she says. “I talk a lot about the long tail of eugenics [in the US]. And I think certainly, lately, the tail is not so hidden anymore.”

“He’s pretty much coming out and saying these things,” Appleman says. “Who deserves to live and who is it okay to not mourn? And this is from someone who runs the HHS. This is profoundly disturbing.”

And if you think that is a bridge too far, couple it further with Kennedy’s absolutely ignorant comments on autism, which he has falsely linked historically to vaccinations, particularly the MMR vaccine.

During the press conference, Kennedy asserted that autism “destroys” families and children. He said that children with autism, “will never pay taxes. They’ll never hold a job. They’ll never play baseball. They’ll never write a poem. They’ll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted.”

“It doesn’t get much closer, that I can imagine, to ‘useless eaters’ than that,” says David Gorski, a surgeon and oncologist at Wayne State University and prolific health blogger, who cofounded the website Science-Based Medicine. “Useless eaters” was a phrase coined by German eugenicists Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche in a 1920 book that advocated for culling people with disabilities — which the Nazi regime would later use to justify mass murder.

This isn’t to suggest that Kennedy himself is a Nazi or is sympathetic to Nazi ideology, to be clear. But he’s adopting a position that is at least similar to the one the Nazis used to eliminate all kinds of people they claimed were poisoning the gene pool. And when you package all of this in with the current administration’s work to defund or otherwise deprioritize all kinds of research, help, and government programs for certain classes of people, well, the comparison begins to get unavoidable.

Additionally proposed and already enacted cuts within HHS include eliminating the national suicide hotline’s program for LGBTQ youth, ending programs focused on preventing childhood lead poisoning, eliminating domestic HIV prevention efforts and research, and scrapping multiple measures for treating drug addiction and opioid overdoses, including grants for supplying emergency responders with Narcan.

Altogether, the changes fit cleanly with the idea that certain lives aren’t worth investing in or protecting, Fox says. “All of these things could be explained through that lens,” she notes — the lens of acceptable death. Refracted through the looking glass, “a lot of things come into focus,” and the road to an America made “healthy again” looks treacherous.

A healthcare policy in which death is an acceptable outcome. Might as well make that HHS’s motto.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “RFK Jr.’s Measles Policy: Deaths Are Expected And It’s The Victim’s Fault”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
33 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Heart of Dawn (profile) says:

This attitude doesn’t just stop with diseases, but to every aspect of life; food contamination, workplace injuries, pollution in the air, soil and water, etc. Their notion is that if it kills you- well you deserve it.

And for anyone who thinks they’ll be OK with this- it can happen to you at any time. You will be fine, right up to the second you’re not. Then it’s all to late. And even if you survive, odds are the resulting disability could end you up as a “useless eater,” and the target of even worse things.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

So, is the point of your quip that the measles epidemic is business as usual and not the result of a significant change in US healthcare policy, or that residents of the US deserve the new waves of death coming from an administration that doesn’t believe in medical science for allowing healthcare to get this bad?

The context of your comment, countering the implied claim that the current situtaion is unusual, suggests instead that not only is this situation normal, but unworthy of comment.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'Only the fit deserve to survive, and by that I mean rich.'

So things like nutrition and access to comprehensive medical care are the difference in living and dying, and it’s only the weak that die from preventable diseases, so RFK Jr and other republicans are clearly all on board with both of those, funding things like school lunches and medical research and treatment programs?

No?

The only people that will have access to the things that ensure that the ‘fit’ will survive are those that already have those things, and given both require money that limits it to those that are already wealthy?

Why, if I didn’t know any better I’d almost think that RFK Jr and the republican party think that being poor and/or being an Other should literally carry a death-sentence.

tweener says:

My dad was both a doctor and a medical administrator...

And I got an insight into how Govt vs Public Health works.

– One “rule of thumb” they had in the 1960s/70s was that the majority of peoples’ call on the health system was in the last two years of their life.

– Another concept was that “there’s never enough capacity: If you build more facilities, then more people will use them, and there will always be complaints about insufficient capacity”. (This also applies to other shared resources like roads, Internet bandwith etc.)

– Regarding Govt health budgets, he said that they always eventually boiled down to waiting list length, and that there would be some downside to a longer list. The trade-off was to apply enough funds to keep the waiting lists manageable, without using so much funds as to bankrupt the State’s economy.

– “Socialised” medicine (e.g. Western govts outside the US) believe in spending funds preventing disease is cheaper than treating victims of disease (aka guard rails at the top of a cliff, versus ambulance/hearse at the bottom of the cliff).

He did NOT believe in Eugenics, but the trade-offs presented above are non-trivial.

— tweener

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

“If you fund more healthcare facilities, more people will use them” isn’t really a trade-off. It would be great if more people used (i.e. were able to use) them. The benefits of that would be enormous.

The point of funding healthcare is not to stop people complaining about it, it’s to give people access to healthcare, which they need.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

the majority of peoples’ call on the health system was in the last two years of their life.

That is correct, practically by definition. (Unless you have a chronic ailment hat takes more than 4 years to kill you.)

I still would prefer those 2 years to happen in my 80’s rather than in my 40’s.

tweener says:

Re: Re: Last two tears: Particularly nasty worked example

[Original author here…]

I still would prefer those 2 years to happen in my 80’s rather than in my 40’s.

In my opinion, there is a particularly cynical and self-serving example of this “last two years” idea.

Cigarettes, especially heavy smokers.

On the one hand, the Government says that it’s trying to cut down the rate of smoking in the community. On the other hand, look a how just about every convenience store, petrol station, supermarket etc. has a license to sell cigarettes, and has a stock to match.

The Government could state that widespread availability is needed to head off illicit/black-market tobacco networks, and, indeed, the black market a real thing.

However, in my opinion, I prefer to take a much more cynical take on the situation, and I present it as a third-party comment as follows:

Poor old Fred: There he was, worked hard all his life, well, sure he was a smoker, but so are many people. It’s really tragic, how, just when he was a couple of years away from retirement, and was looking forward to retirement and receiving his pension, he came down with lung cancer, and his life was cut short.

Not only did the Government collect a “healthy” tax revenue from him while he was alive, they also saved a significant amount of money by not having to pay him any significant pension.

–tweener

David says:

Re: Re: Don't you follow the news?

RFK junior was more involved with child raising than the children cared for. For example, he involved them in his enterprise of sawing a whale into pieces and transporting its head off on his car, a lasting memory they’d rather not have.

Some might call that child raising, other might call it hackle raising.

glenn says:

Yo! Bobby-J[r]… you know, [f]Elon-boy claims to be “autistic” (“on the spectrum”), though I’m pretty sure that it’s really just a matter of him being a flaming asshole (no “spectrum” involved). Is he a useless eater? …absolutely! but that’s just him… nothing to do with being autistic. (And, by the way, germs are not a theory, but a proven medical fact. Try to keep up…sorry–forgot about your missing brain cells [where all your rational thought must have been lodged].)

David says:

Re:

Elon-boy claims to be “autistic” (“on the spectrum”), though I’m pretty sure that it’s really just a matter of him being a flaming asshole (no “spectrum” involved)

Po-ta-to, po-tah-toh.

Both are classifications that group certain behavior patterns that are likely to occur together in one person. They are quite correlated.

“asshole” is more a conclusion, “on the spectrum” more of a starting point or work hypothesis for where you want to be going (or find yourself able or willing to go) with someone.

In the medical profession, you want terms that leave options. A psychiatrist can tell a patient “you are on the spectrum, so we need to develop strategies how to deal with that” but really cannot start with “you are an asshole, so we need to develop strategies how to deal with that”.

And the slightly more accurate version “you cannot help being an asshole, so we need to develop strategies” is not much better.

A medical term is easier for both patient and psychiatrist to work with.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

A medical term is easier for both patient and psychiatrist to work with.

Only if said ‘patient’ has a psychiatrist to begin with, which Elon doesn’t. He diagnosed himself, which, as a billionaire, he has absolutely no excuse for. This suggests he adopted the label of Asperger syndrome as an excuse for his narcissism and psychopathy. Further evidence he is not autistic is his absolute resistance to rules and regulations and love of drama and chaos and urgency, which are the complete opposite of every autistic person I ever worked with in my forty-five year career as a carer before retiring last year. They actually thrive on rules to know what’s expected of them and hate chaos because of their need for order.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Pixelation says:

Even if RFK Jr was correct, (He isn’t) the Trump administration is making sure that most people can no longer afford good, nutritious food. Yay, Tariff taxes! We’re going to get rich! Think of all the $10 eggs we’ll not be able to afford!

Pseudonymous Coward says:

That is ABSOLUTELY the perspective of a sizable and growing chunk of the Republican support – that life exists as a way of sorting people into “the right hierarchy”. To them, if you die, it’s because you were weak and didn’t deserve life.

Same with wealth. To them, the world is a chance for the best to get fabulously wealthy, and if you’re poor, or especially homeless, it’s because you were lazy and stupid, not like THEM since they clearly EARNED their wealth.

This belief in a hierarchy where people have their “right place” is part of their horror at offering any chance to the poor, racialized groups, etc. In their worldview, this is putting people in THE WRONG PLACE, which is a grievous crime indeed. Of course, what the right system looks like, how you determine who deserves that position vs who clearly just got there through meddling, has a lot to do with the color of your skin and the letter on your birth certificate.

To this perspective, any attempt at equality is inherently ridiculous – life is “obviously” about sorting us into a hierarchy of leaders and their servants, and white men have “clearly” shown their superiority. They are convinced that opposing this hierarchy is like trying to stop the sun from rising, and in fact a great many believe we “know” that too – that we are doing this simply as a ploy to put ourselves at the top of their hierarchy. And little terrorizes them like signs that it might actually be possible to flatten that hierarchy, to unmake it and create a society of equals.

This is absolutely Social Darwinist nonsense similar to what the Eugenics Movement so heartily embraced, and it should be recognized for the garbage that it is.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a BestNetTech Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

BestNetTech community members with BestNetTech Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the BestNetTech Insider Shop »

Follow BestNetTech

BestNetTech Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the BestNetTech Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
BestNetTech Deals
BestNetTech Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the BestNetTech Insider Discord channel...
Loading...