Anti-Nuclear M.D.s Sense Change : Prognosis Improves for Peers’ Support, Physicians Say

Physicians for Social Responsibility is an international organization made up of members of the medical profession who have as their mandate the desire to end what they see as the world’s greatest threat:

Nuclear weapons.

The organization was founded in the early ‘60s, in the climate of the Cuban missile crisis. The first president of the local chapter was Dr. J. William Hollingsworth, a professor of medicine at the UC San Diego School of Medicine and chief of medical services for the Veterans Administration Hospital in La Jolla.

Physicians for Social Responsibility, which even its members say is left of center on most political issues, claims 30,000 members nationwide and about 800 in San Diego County. Hollingsworth said just 350 local members are physicians, but that all “are in the health field in some capacity.”

The local board of Physicians for Social Responsibility meets eight to 10 times a year; the membership as a whole meets every other month. Elisabeth Abrahams, a spokeswoman for the organization, defines its purpose as educating the medical profession--and the population at large--about the consequences of nuclear war and the dangers of the arms buildup.

But is everyone a willing listener?

For instance, how does such an organization maintain a foothold in San Diego, which remains so important militarily and where most of the population--including its physicians--is pro-Bush conservative?

Nuclear Weapons Spending ‘Foolish’

“I think everyone has started to realize that it’s foolish to spend as much on nuclear weapons as we do,” Hollingsworth said.

But have they?

Dr. Lynn Sheffey, president of the San Diego County Medical Society, which lists 3,000 active members, offered a different interpretation:

“There’s no way to quantitate it, but I’d be dubious if they (PSR) represented anything close to the majority of viewpoints among physicians. As I understand it, their main concern is to make sure that nuclear bombs are done away with, that all nuclear arms are disarmed. Doctors, generally, are fairly conservative politically.”

However true that may be, Dr. Z Kripke, associate physician for the Department of Community Medicine at UCSD, says she--like Hollingsworth--senses an undercurrent in the thinking of rank-and-file physicians, adding that it is just this kind of shift, albeit subtle, that PSR hopes to trigger.

Published Recognition

She said the San Diego Physician, the house organ for the county medical society, recently published a two-page article on the group, whereas in the past even getting mentioned would have been difficult, if not impossible.

Sheffey said most physicians are conservative because many are, first and foremost, businessmen.

Kripke said it is precisely that--fiscal conservatism--that has led to a change in some doctors’ thinking about nuclear weapons.

“I think physicians as a whole are becoming more sensitive to the economic implications of the nuclear buildup,” Kripke said. “In 1980, we allocated $144 billion in military spending, but, by 1988, it had jumped to $290 billion, an increase of 47%.

“Medicaid is very important to physicians. That’s down 3%. Child nutrition programs are down 28%. The food stamp program is down 14%. In 1980, 29 million Americans were below the poverty level; in 1988, the figure had jumped to 33 million. About 35 million Americans have no medical coverage. These are distressing statistics to any physician, regardless of his or her political views.”

Joshua Adler, a fourth-year medical student at UCSD and a member of Physicians for Social Responsibility, said he, too, senses the shift in thinking.

“When ‘Star Wars’ (the Strategic Defense Initiative) was first proposed, hardly anyone in the rank-and-file medical community opposed it,” Adler said. “Now, you’re hearing of a lot of opposition, not just to that but to other nuclear programs.”

Asked how the membership of the local medical society feels about nuclear weapons, Sheffey said, “I just wouldn’t know. . . . I can’t think of any particular resolve one way or the other. It’s the kind of issue we haven’t formally addressed. I wasn’t really aware there was any prevailing public opinion.”

At Odds With Peers

When asked what risk there would be if the United States destroyed its nuclear arsenal without a comparable move by the Soviet Union, Kripke replied, “None.” In saying that, she said she knows she is at odds with most members of the medical profession, if not most of the American electorate.

“But, 10 years ago, if you said you were bitterly opposed to all nuclear weapons, a lot of physicians would have branded you unpatriotic, and that’s changing,” she said. “I see the anger rate increasing. People are starting to question pro-nuclear candidates.

“It used to be that a candidate for local office--school board or city council--was never asked his or her position on nuclear weapons. Now everybody gets asked that question.”

Kripke said the meltdown at Chernobyl, one of the Soviets’ nuclear power plants, has led to a softening in hard-line pro-nuclear positions.

“Three hundred million children go to bed each night without the proper number of calories necessary for health,” she said. “Think about how many we could feed if we took just a portion of the money spent on nuclear weapons.

“I think these are increasingly the kinds of questions physicians have to wrestle with, regardless of their political views. I think they’ll have to consider them out of necessity. That applies not just to San Diego, but everywhere.”