“Do you think Robert Kennedy Jr will be good for the health of our country?” asked one of my relatives at a recent gathering. I looked up and locked eyes with her, starting to smile at what I assumed was a wry remark from a successful professional who recalls gratefully standing in line to receive the polio shot during its national rollout, the very vaccine for which Kennedy’s associates have sought to revoke government approval.
Seeing her earnest expression awaiting an answer, I quickly masked my disappointment. She was serious. I was stunned.
As the only doctor in my family, I often field inquiries about health-related topics. Increasingly, these questions have roots in politics, not medicine.
Proposals elevating unqualified individuals like Kennedy erode public confidence in medicine. When people mistake political messaging for scholarly debate, they miss opportunities to protect themselves and their children from preventable harm. As a neonatal critical care physician, I fear for the babies whose parents refuse the standard of care while believing they are acting in their child’s best interest.
If we actually want to “make America healthy again,” we need doctors to lead, not lawyers, businesspeople, or politicians. If our goals include improved survival rates and a reduction in the burden of chronic illness, we should look to experts in medical specialties like pediatrics. Pediatricians focus on preventing illness, promoting growth and development, and addressing health determinants.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Thanks to advances and breakthroughs spearheaded by pediatricians and public health experts over the last century, fewer families suffer losses in infancy and childhood. Just a few generations ago, many young children died from infectious diseases, which are still formidable foes globally. Modern threats in America fundamentally differ from those in the past, but experts warn that “childhood” diseases will resurge, endangering us all.
When I became a doctor, I never imagined that dispelling families’ suspicions surrounding empirical practice would consume so much of my day. Given countless unexplored medical frontiers, I marvel at the cumulative energy currently spent rehashing questions science has answered definitively.
More and more, I engage in lengthy discussions about vitamin K, vaccines, breastmilk, and screenings like blood sugar and jaundice testing – all proven interventions that non-doctors now question in social media posts. These safe, scientifically-backed recommendations are evidence-based, decades old, and continually reevaluated. They are not experimental and rarely cutting edge. They are met with distrust anyway. Every week, I encounter at least one newborn (sometimes more) whose family declines data-driven medical advice.
To be sure, distrust is not the only motive for questioning medical guidelines. Some families worry about the financial burden of hospitalizations, particularly intensive care. With insurance companies routinely rejecting coverage for the standard of care, Americans justifiably ask what benefit they derive from medical protocols. While healthcare can be expensive, the cost of refusing medically-indicated care may be catastrophically high.
Improving health outcomes requires clear communication. Selecting a non-medical leader for HHS undermines effective communication in two important ways. First, it creates uncertainty about when medical expertise is necessary and what information and institutions Americans can trust. Second, this lack of clarity creates a permission structure for mental shortcuts and binary thinking instead of cultivating the analytical reasoning that health decisions require.
Take ultra-processed foods. Many refer to these foods as “bad.” While adults might safely eliminate these foods from their diet, reflexively rejecting all ultra-processed items could hurt many infants. Formula (technically ultra-processed) remains an important nutrition for some babies, especially preterm infants and those with dietary restrictions. Without credible guidance and meaningful dialogue, truly beneficial advances risk dismissal alongside fads.
Nominating individuals for high-profile government positions imbues them and their beliefs with credibility, no matter how far-fetched. Sensible statements, like expressing concern that additives pose potential health dangers, comingle with conspiracy theories. The politicization of what should be bipartisan information places facts and fiction in ideological equipoise for many outside the medical community. This confusion most imperils children, who rely entirely on their caregivers’ judgment and decision-making.
Supporters claim Kennedy’s perspective will help Americans “make informed choices.” His approach distracts attention from where it should be: solving our myriad medical mysteries. With HHS withholding information, urgency intensifies for its leader to operate with transparency, facts, and qualifications, as America’s pediatricians already do.
Dr. Brooke Redmond is an attending neonatologist at the Yale New Haven Children’s Hospital. She leads the Neonatal ICU as the Medical Director at Waterbury Hospital, where she is also the Chair of Pediatrics. Dr. Redmond is a fellow of the OpEd Project, and the opinions expressed are her own and do not represent those of Yale University.
