Talk:Benjamin Rush

Conway cabal and the "Attacks" on George Washington

I have been studying Benjamin Rush for 1.5 years now. I have read every published letter he wrote during the war, and I find no evidence of a conspiracy to replace George Washington as Commander-in-Chief. Many historians believe there was no conspiracy, no "Conway Cabal." To write "Attack on George Washington" as one of the main sections of the man's history is inappropriate, as is quoting one historian who wrote a book about revolutionary war conspiracy theories. This page on Benjamin Rush doesn't have a section about him being one of the founders of Dickinson College. It doesn't talk much about him serving as surgeon general either. To make an entire section about his "tireless efforts" and his "campaign" to replace Washington is not based in fact but rather speculation. Even if it were true - it should be a footnote after the man's real established history and accomplishments.Mflarsen (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2011 (

Take the religious propaganda elsewhere

Whoa, somebody's got to get off the religion pills here. We want an objective article, not an argument for how great and religious the founding fathers were. If this stuff goes back up I'm tagging the page.

His religious views are fairly significant to his story and are mentioned even at www.benjaminrush.com. I've tried to clean up that section a bit though as it was overly dependent on quotes and gave little information on his own religious history. I'd intended to never edit here again, but on occasion I get tempted. I hope the change was acceptable.--T. Anthony 06:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second, why shouldn't his religious views be included? After all, his religious beliefs are important to history, and provide valuable insight to his personal behavior. The fact that the founding fathers had stong religious convictions ought to be included in the article.

Steven R. (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC) a previous editor was apparently confused by what "Univeralist' meant during this period of time, and had a commentary on what Universalist wasn't (which should have be clear to anyone who clicked the link). I removed that commentary, to hopefully make it read clearer. I suspect, that it still needs a neutral person to fix up. I's my understanding that Rush attended several different Christian denominations during the same years, didnt want to tie himself to just one - but that would take someone doing more research than I have, to confirm.

The faith of our founders is important to understand how they produced the constitution in forming this country. Without it, the country would not have emerged any differently than Europe. We have not had revolutions every 40 years & have maintained the freedom to pursue the life we want. USA is different & better than other countries as to human freedom to excel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.233.229.23 (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Take the secularist propaganda and historical revisionists elsewhere; the faiths of our Founding Father played a huge role in the founding of the USA. They weren't just a bunch of "deists"; most of them were dedicated Christians and many held seminary degrees, being a deists or agnostic was much more the exception than the norm. Some more information concerning Rush can be found here: [1]. - Invmog (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the religious section a few months ago, and revised it somewhat earlier this month. Frankly, it needs further revisions, probably fairly minor, but that I don't have time for. In particular, the link between Rush and Universalists such as Joseph Priestley and William Russell could be explicated. I even saw a published reference to Rush paying pew fees in several churches, so he could take a few minutes to reflect in a church nearby, before or after a medical call. Jweaver28 (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Jweaver28 (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Calendar problem

In 1745 Britain and her possessions still observed the Julian calendar. Is Rush's birthdate in Old Style or has it been retrofitted to the Gregorian calendar? (A common problem for British dates between 1582 and 1752.) Axel 02:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've found a website that says he was born on 24 December 1745 Old Style (4 January 1746 New Style). I'll add a note to that effect if I find a more authoritative source and nobody beats me to it. Axel 02:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelHarvey (talk • contribs)

36K Google hits for the alleged "Bastille of medical science" quote

try it yourself - benjamin rush "bastille of medical". It may well be false, but clearly it is a culturally significant fact that thousands of people associate Dr. Rush with the anti-established medicine political stance. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The more I read about 'alternative' medicine and the freedom of health the more I realize that Wikipedia seems to have a lock-down restriction/censorship on the freedom of health! Which it is what Dr. Benjamin Rush advocated for when said:
“Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one class of Men and deny equal privileges to others; the Constitution of the Republic should make a Special privilege for medical freedoms as well as religious freedom.” - Benjamin Rush MD.
And it really does not matter if he really said it or if somebody else said it. The importance of it reside on an advance view of what medicine inevitably is suppose to become in a near future. A medicine that respects and values the freedom of all man to choose their own path on anything they do in Life... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.5.241 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Descendants

Someone wrote "Rush's Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great Grand Niece is Mamie Rush Stevenson, a student at Reed College" and it was, of course, removed, but I'm posting it here in case the IP editor wants to discuss anything. Although a list of notable descendants would be cool, being a student at some college hardly meets notability guidelines, and of course it could just a joke. But notable descendants would a nice addition to the article. Invmog (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

All of his descendants, notable or not, can be added to Familypedia.wikia.com. Robin Patterson (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Racism in Rush's science

from another wiki article, I read: Physician American Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and early abolitionist, used the term negritude to describe a hypothetical disease which he believed to be a mild form of leprosy, whose only cure was to become white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapblack (talk • contribs) 20:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Revisions needed

Perhaps because Dr. Rush was such a character (in the colloquial American sense), this page can reflect more of the controversies in which he was involved, rather than the man (and civic leader) he also was. I don't have time to do these changes, due both to personal responsibilities and the revisions I've done/am doing to the webpage of Rush's acquaintance George Wythe, which was in similar disarray (though their personalities were quite dissimilar!). Another part of the problem is apparently that Dr. Rush left the most voluminous set of papers of any of the Founding Fathers, so biographers either get overwhelmed and don't finish, or pick and choose aspects of Rush's personality, which IMHO leads to significant blind spots in the bios I've read. With respect to this page, I suggest incorporating the George Washington controversy section into the Revolutionary War one. Also, the section about Dr. Rush's contributions to psychiatry doesn't flesh out what I consider two defining events. (1) Rush's continued focus (fixation?) on bloodletting, which the Cobbett trial drew public attention to, and which basically killed his practice as what would now be considered as a general practitioner or internal medicine specialist, and (2) the family origins of Rush's contributions to psychiatry. Rush's son became a military doctor, then became institutionalized after he killed another man in a duel. I don't know if ptsd or other "father issues" were involved, but that illness prompted Rush to advocate more humane psychiatric treatment.Jweaver28 (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, the sections on Rush's involvement with the Corps of Discovery (or early pharma industry), could be fleshed out or put as a subtopic under the Medical Contributions section. The abolition section has text material that should be footnotes, and also needs fleshing out, since Rush might've been one of the most prominent abolitionists of his day. Maybe a major heading could be created about something like social activism, with subheadings for religion, temperance, abolition and maybe also prisons, or maybe even moving public health and psychiatry from the medical contributions section.Jweaver28 (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Jweaver28 (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of analogies to this article being both C class and of high importance in both the Philadelphia and Chicago article listings (or this particular talk entry looking as disjointed as the underlying article), as I walked my dog, I realized I had forgotten another area of Rush's contributions that seems left out here. Somewhere I read about Rush's being labelled the father of American veterinary medicine. One book had a line that Rush either sat in or caused to be established the first chair of veterinary medicine in the USA (at U Penn). Nothing more, so I'm not putting a subheading yet into the medical contributions heading. Maybe Rush also worked to improve the treatment of horses or dogs in Philly (limiting working hours or establishing water troughs?), or in prohibiting animal baiting (cockfights were popular in Richmond in the era), or simply did veterinary work to pay bills when his human clientele disappeared ..... Jweaver28 (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Benjamin Rush Society

While doing a few edits of this article, I came across this site, which cheezed me off (to be colloquial), as did the linked article and ultimately the website and organization being promoted.[1] So here's my rant. The proposed "free market" approach, probably well-funded under-the-table by medical device manufacturers or big pharma or (most likely) big insurance companies, might be why this particular wikipedia page is such a grade c (dare I say?) problem. Intellectual stimulation (like substantive article editing) doesn't buy an iPad or result in stock options or even country club invites. Why even think about herding cats (especially when I have a dog?)? I could be earning more with my time, so why not? The simplest answer is that I'm as crazy as Dr. Rush. Other avenues of condemnation could use big words like schadenfreude or procrastination.

That said, here is more chain-of-thought provoked by these particular links. My experience (such as it is) has been that most free-market advocates are also the most defensive about their own profession's failings being picked apart by a free market in ideas, as frankly, Dr. Benjamin Rush and his 18th and 19th century medicine can be now. So we don't think about the messy stuff, like the resold medical supplies and the bloodletting and the crazy son. Is "don't ask, don't tell" now the highest standard of professional ethics? Not only did Dr. Rush once participate in many discussions about ideas, at least a few decades ago, medical schools taught the Hippocratic oath, as well as Dr. Rush's dying words to the effect of "remember the poor." That's why he had the big funeral, etc. (though of course he couldn't enjoy it because he was dead). Nowadays, Dr. Rush is forgotten except on the APA medallion. So, he's the namesake of the "Benjamin Rush Society," named by people who admit they had no idea who the man was, but (1) he was a doctor, (2) he was a founding father, (3) there was less government regulation then. And there's a market niche and careers and money to be made crying against government regulation. The Federalist Society proved that.

Of course. Or maybe not. OK, the society's webpage says they have lots of chapters and some "debates" against "obamacare" and so let's feel good about them and join in. I suggest, cynically, that the real "Benjamin Rush Society" discussion encouraged by Kessler and Pipes and Avik Roy and Graham behind closed doors might be more about the BRS' about pages's bottom left corner, legal news for doctors. Unlike the short bio, probably unchanged from 2010, it is kept up to date. Or is it? Each of the three news blips takes a positive marketing approach to ethical problem areas. Public attention shouldn't be drawn to EMR alterations, different possible billing codes with respect to the same procedure, kickbacks from pharma and device manufacturers or returns on investment in referral-rich subsidiaries, much less email reminders from "management" to convince elderly people to have lucrative (but likely both painful and at best only marginally successful) operations while withholding much wanted info about HODADs. 'See' Marty Makary's Unaccountable. All that's "government regulation". Bad talk. Bad. At least in public better to talk about inconsistencies between the ethical demands of the Hippocratic oath and government regulation. And scope of practice and supervision and good EMR.

Of course people still get old and still get sick and some are poor. What matters now is the marketplace. Insurers advertise about their doctor networks, and, after a procedure, "gotcha!" works. That's practical; that's business. Sick people can be invited to change companies or simply told treatment won't be covered, and complainers will be punished. Insurers and health care conglomerates like United Healthcare and MedStar Health can have it both ways. They and others in their respective market segments are each unaccountable because of their size, technology, advertising and political contributions. After all, why not find something right and direct all attention to it? That's marketing. Or find someone else doing bad and direct all attention to them? Marketing too! Lawyers can be scapegoats, or a cost of doing business. It's all about information control--that's the real Federalist Society lesson for the Benjamin Rush Society. Technology can assist, and be changed, and above all be paid for. Forget the doctor part. It's changed. Conscience is a neurological issue. Medical organizations and associations today advocate marketing approaches for out-of-pocket payments from clients or upfront fees for "concierge" level services. While behemoth insurers or medical conglomerates negotiate down individual providers, which looks sometimes like blackmail, but really is good business. And then there's the overhead. Always too high.

Once Blue Cross was the answer, as Avik Roy the analyst mentions. In the 1990s Blue cross affiliates wanted desperately to privatize, and the executives at the top profited handsomely, as does the highest level at all 'top-tier' insurance companies and healthcare conglomerates, especially when ROI percentages and other numbers can be tweaked or cherrypicked. Because plausible deniability is all that is required nowadays, in an intentionally advertising/marketing-expense cluttered but information-poor, fragmented "healthcare system." Now "advertising professionals" and "market analysis professionals" claim the same ground as "medical professionals." And government regulators are a scapegoat, appeased with appropriate campaign contributions to the right people, or maybe a nice luncheon spread while some records get examined, officially, privately, with respect for the "patient privacy," though of course the patient is either complaining and not there, or doesn't know. Methinks we're at the bottom of what became a slippery slope in the decades since Arrow and Herzlinger, that Avik Roy sets up as straw people. That's his job. And I dare suggest that's not true professionalism. And that the Benjamin Rush Society is not about professionalism either.

The poor and sick will always be with us--as Dr. Rush knew his Bible, and the profit motive. Was execution his problem? No, I'm not accusing him of intentionally killing patients. I'm using it in the "execution of business plan" sense of Avik Roy and the BRS crew (I'm not even sure what to call them--cabal is perjorative, maybe "associates" is corporate enough). At one time, economists and business people did not claim the same levels of (dare I say?) integrity as doctors. About a year before the BRS created its webpage, I heard someone call integrity a "behavioral health disorder," of course attributing it to someone else. IMHO, the "Benjamin Rush Society" is all about marketing economics as ethics. Which to me seems crazy, but, as this lengthy post shows, I'm crazy. Of course the BRS webpage has a plausible bio, complete with picture. Why bother with links, and verifiability and all that academic sounding mumbo jumbo? The "free market approach," where quality information is deliberately distorted or withheld as in today's medical marketplace is all about gaming the system. In Dr. Rush's day maybe most did the same, Dr. Shippen did, but not Dr. Rush, which is what the big funeral hooha was about. Free marketers don't like reminders that Gresham's Law is about a race toward both lucre and the ethical bottom, rather than promoting "the fittest." Or am I one of the last in the tunnel, like Dr. Rush and his whistleblowing and bloodletting and crazy kid? Clearly, a long post like this isn't going to get constructive action on the article. So I'm just venting....Jweaver28 (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry

"Benjamin Rush's great-great-grandfather, John Rush, came to America with his wife, Susannah (Lucas) Rush ... . Susannah Lucas was first cousin to William Penn who established Pennsylvania. Their mothers were sisters." - Where can I see some real information about the birth date and parentage and spouse(s) of Susannah'a mother, backing up the above statement? Geni.com is vague about it. Familypedia.wikia.com notes the apparent discrepancy of dates. Robin Patterson (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)