UConn DEI-ifies the Hippocratic Oath

The Hippocratic Oath has for two millennia served as the foundational pillar of medicine in Western civilization. The oath binds physicians to a commitment to “do no harm,” to help the sick, and to various other ethical principles.

But according to the University of Connecticut (UConn) School of Medicine, the oath should also be a pledge to advance DEI in medicine.

UConn in 2022 announced plans to transform its version of the Hippocratic Oath into not only an oath, but a commitment to radical political ideology. The change was prompted by the university’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee.

“We have revised our medical school’s Hippocratic oath to include active pledges to identify and mitigate personal biases, to uphold human rights, to respond to medical myths with evidenced based information and without judgment, to actively support policies that promote social justice and specifically work to dismantle policies that perpetuate inequities, exclusion, discrimination, and racism,” UConn’s announcement read.

Do No Harm obtained a copy of UConn’s 2024 Hippocratic Oath used in the school’s White Coat Ceremony for the class of 2028. A commitment to “do no harm” is conspicuously absent; in fact, the word “harm” does not appear at all.

Instead, the document is replete with references to political ideology: “I will work actively to identify and mitigate my own biases so as to treat all patients and coworkers with humility and dignity”; “I will strive to promote health equity”; “I will actively support policies that promote social justice and specifically work to dismantle policies that perpetuate inequities, exclusion, discrimination and racism.”

Not only does UConn’s oath eschew one of the fundamental ethical principles of Western medicine, it promotes ideas that are directly opposed to the oath’s principles. 

“Health equity” and “social justice” are often euphemisms for racially discriminatory policies that disadvantage certain racial groups in the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion. These policies directly harm patients, physicians, and the public alike.

When it comes to the development of medical expertise and the practice of medicine outside these goals, UConn’s oath has comparatively little to say. Almost half the oath is instead devoted to larger social goals, such as the promotion of “human life” and “human rights.”

Unfortunately, UConn is not alone; the University of Minnesota Medical School asked its medical students to swear allegiance to “indigenous ways of healing,” with the oath referencing anti-racism and climate advocacy. Columbia University’s medical students wrote their own Hippocratic Oaths.

Medical schools should not stray from the core principle of “do no harm”; it is the foundation of Western medical ethics. Altering the Hippocratic Oath to replace this commitment with one to a dangerous political ideology is antithetical to the purpose of medicine itself.

Don’t Let DEI Destroy Canada’s Medical Education

The future of Canada’s medical education may very well be in jeopardy, and Do No Harm is taking action.

The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, the country’s medical regulatory body that oversees medical education and licensure for the country’s physicians, is preparing a revision in 2025 to its educational framework, called CanMEDS. This framework informs the curriculum at the country’s medical schools.

But rather than simply educate the country’s physicians, the upcoming revision has another more insidious goal: to infect Canadian medical education with DEI ideology.

Per the Royal College’s anti-racism working group, the proposed revision “would seek to centre values such as anti-oppression, anti-racism and social justice, rather than medical expertise.”

In short, the revision would make Canadian medical education a tool to advance the DEI agenda, and make actual medical expertise subordinate to this radical ideological goal.

Do No Harm is calling on the Royal College to reject these changes, and make clear its commitment to medical expertise.

Canadian physicians who understand the danger this proposal poses to Canadians’ health have raised concerns in recent months. 

Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Roy Eappen, a practicing endocrinologist in Montreal, said the proposal represented a troubling shift in the Royal College’s mission. 

“The Royal College has always represented excellence in teaching and patient care,” Dr. Eappen said. “This seems to move away from that and move toward activism.” 

Do No Harm previously sounded the alarm over the proposal, and urged Canadian physicians to submit comments on the proposed revision last year.

But more pressure is needed to help stop this corruption of Canadian medical education.

Do No Harm is sending a letter to the Royal College demanding it reject these revisions. 

If you’re a Canadian health professional who is concerned about the future of your country’s medical education, please consider signing the following statement. Your name will be added to our letter. 

“Medical expertise is the only acceptable foundation of medicine. The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons should immediately reject any proposal to replace or dilute medical training with radical political ideology. The health of every Canadian hangs in the balance.”

If you’re a Canadian medical professional who would like to sign this statement, please see below.

S3E1: Navigating the Voter Pulse on Pediatric Gender Medicine and DEI Part 1

,

Guests: Aaron Sibarium & Leor Sapir

In Season 3, Episode 1 of the Do No Harm Podcast, we delve into the critical issues of so called gender affirming care and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and their significance to the electorate. How do these issues resonate with voters, and what sentiments do they evoke? We dissect the official positions of political campaigns, examining the messaging strategies they employ to justify their stances.

Listen in via Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, or Amazon Music.

The views expressed by guests on this podcast are the opinions of those guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of Do No Harm.

Do No Harm Unveils Guide Exposing Flawed Research Behind DEI Myths

DEI ideology in medicine is often grounded on false but well-entrenched myths about systemic racism in healthcare.

Take, for example, the notion that patients receive better medical care from doctors of the same racial group. Medical research does not support this claim, but it is nevertheless used as justification for DEI initiatives that invariably discriminate against qualified physicians based on their race.

Do No Harm is releasing a guide breaking down several of the more commonly cited studies used to support these claims. The studies often have serious methodological issues that cast doubt on their findings, and often measure effects that do not support their conclusions.

For instance, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argues that black newborn babies may be more likely to survive if they are treated by black physicians than white physicians.

But the researchers did not adequately control for the fact that specialist doctors treating seriously ill newborns are more likely to be white, or that black newborns on average face more health challenges overall. Moreover, the statistical difference between the racial groups’ respective survival rates is incredibly small.

Another study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association has been used to argue that patients receive better medical care from doctors of the same racial group.

However, that study did not actually measure healthcare quality or health outcomes; instead, it merely asked patients about their likelihood of recommending that doctor to others.

This guide will enable the public to better understand the serious flaws undergirding DEI research, and help them separate fact from fiction.

Read the full guide here.

Is the University of Colorado Running a Discriminatory Medical Degree Program?

A small number of medical schools are offering joint baccalaureate-MD programs, in which high school students are admitted into programs where they can earn both an undergraduate and a medical degree.

But the University of Colorado Denver’s (CU Denver) BA/BS-MD program, operated in partnership with the University of Colorado School of Medicine, is a little different. 

The program’s eligibility criteria state that the program is “focused” on Colorado high school seniors who are from “ethnic groups who are currently under-represented in the medical community in Colorado,” as well as from educationally and financially disadvantaged backgrounds. 

The ethnic groups deemed “under-represented” include ​​​​​​​​​​​Black or African American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American/Alaska Native, Pacific Islander, and Vietnamese.

To be clear, the university makes sure to attach a disclaimer to its eligibility criteria assuring the public that it does not practice overt racial discrimination.

“The University of Colorado BA/BS-MD Program conducts its review practices holistically; in a manner which treats each applicant fairly, on the basis of experience, attributes and metrics without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, in accordance with federal law,” the disclaimer reads. 

But questions remain all the same. How, exactly, does CU Denver plan to “focus” on individuals from these ethnic backgrounds? 

Moreover, the web page advertising the program makes clear that CU Denver has swallowed the DEI agenda hook, line, and sinker, noting that the university will “pursue practices that advance equity, inclusion, and access.”

The University of Colorado School of Medicine also made clear it was “disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court decision to prohibit the limited consideration of an applicant’s racial or ethnic background in admissions decisions” in a statement last year, pledging to continue its efforts to advance DEI.

The medical school also previously scrubbed racially discriminatory eligibility criteria from several of its scholarships after Do No Harm filed a federal civil rights complaint.

When considering this context, the university’s decision to “focus” its degree program on certain ethnic groups is all the more troubling.

The Association for Academic Surgery Needs to Take a Scalpel to Its Discriminatory Programs

Do No Harm has extensively cataloged examples of racial discrimination in medical education over the past few years. Oftentimes, the prime culprits are professional medical associations that become captured by the DEI ideology and engage in racial discrimination in service of this agenda.

Take the Association for Academic Surgery; the AAS has for years maintained several programs that discriminate against applicants according to their race or other immutable characteristics.

For instance: the AAS Fall Courses Award, funded by the AAS Foundation.

“The AAS Fall Courses provide pearls of wisdom and a discussion of the advances in research methods, academic career advancement, grant writing, as well as incorporate interactive sessions where participants can discuss their ideas with academic surgical leaders and network with colleagues,” the award description reads.

That sounds like a pretty valuable opportunity. But AAS believes it should only be available to members of certain racial groups, gender identities, and sexual orientations.

The award is limited to individuals “who by race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or any other personal identification is an underrepresented voice in surgery.” This includes women, LGBTQ individuals, and certain racial minorities such as blacks and Native Americans.

Would a straight white or Japanese man qualify for the award? Judging from the criteria, it would appear he would not.

While discrimination is unacceptable in any circumstance, AAS’s behavior is especially troubling because the organization’s self-described mission is to “inspire and develop young academic surgeons.” The AAS is charged with stewardship over the field of academic surgery, and its actions set an example.

In another case, the AAS offered its Student Diversity Travel Award to “three female or underrepresented minority medical students.”

The award provides medical students with a $500 stipend, as well as networking opportunities and complimentary registration at the Academic Surgical Congress in Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Again, a pretty good deal – if you’re of the right sex and race.

A previous version of the award listing simply stated the program was open to underrepresented minorities. 

Needless to say, these opportunities should not be limited to individuals based on their race.

The AAS should remove its discriminatory criteria and open these opportunities up to all individuals, regardless of which group they belong to.

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Takes a Giant ‘LEAP’ Backwards

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine’s (SAEM) Leadership, Engagement, and Academic Pathway (LEAP) Program is designed to provide mentorship and guidance to medical students seeking to work in academic emergency medicine.

Sponsored by the organization’s Equity and Inclusion Committee and the Academy for Diversity and Inclusion in Emergency Medicine, the LEAP program offers a $1,000 stipend, emergency medicine academic faculty mentorship, and additional scholarly opportunities.

Needless to say, the LEAP program would likely open doors for the selected students to advance professionally.

But there’s a catch: The program is geared toward students of particular racial groups and sexual identities. 

A flyer advertising the program notes it is “tailored” to students who are part of groups considered “underrepresented” in medicine. 

The Association of American Medical Colleges defines underrepresented groups simply as “those racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population,” while the National Institutes of Health defines underrepresented groups as “Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders.”

Moreover, the LEAP program description stipulates that eligible candidates are from “historically marginalized groups” such as “individuals with disabilities, sexual or gender minorities, and historically marginalized ethnic and racial groups.”

Does this mean that a white or Asian student seeking mentorship would, or could, be denied due to their racial background? It’s not immediately clear.

But it is obvious that this program is explicitly designed to preference certain racial groups over others.

And if SAEM’s intentions weren’t evident, the program description notes that “special consideration for historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-serving Institutions (HSIs), and Osteopathic medical schools.” Oh, and the application itself directs students to enter their ethnic group and sexual preference.

Why is that information relevant to one’s suitability for mentorship? Why should certain racial groups be given preferential treatment when applying to a program that could help kickstart their careers?

It would appear that SAEM’s decision to prioritize advancing the DEI agenda over helping the most deserving students is the most likely answer to these questions. 

SAEM’s self-professed mission is to “create[ ] and promote[ ] scientific discovery, advancement of education, and the highest professional and ethical standards for clinicians, educators, and researchers.” Preferencing certain racial groups is not only counterproductive to these goals, but immoral in itself. 

SAEM should take its own mission to heart and cease all racial discrimination.

Civil Society Organizations Join Do No Harm in Opposing California’s Orwellian Licensing Law

Last week, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Young Americans for Freedom, and the Cato Institute each filed amicus briefs in Do No Harm’s lawsuit against California’s medical board. 

Do No Harm thanks these organizations for their work to fight for free speech in medical education. 

In 2019, California mandated all continuing medical education (CME) courses “contain curriculum that includes the understanding of implicit bias,” beginning in 2022. California requires physicians to log 50 CME hours every two years to renew their medical license; thus, the law effectively forces physicians to submit to hours of ideological programming if they wish to renew their license.

But more troublingly, the law requires physicians teaching CME courses to become active participants in advancing this ideological agenda. This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition of compelled speech.

In 2023, Do No Harm joined Dr. Azadeh Khatibi’s lawsuit against the Medical Board of California on the grounds that the law violated physicians’ First Amendment rights. However, the district court dismissed the claim in May 2024, finding that CME courses were “government speech.” Do No Harm appealed the decision last month. 

Do No Harm applauds the Cato Institute, Young Americans for Freedom, and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons for their briefs opposing this law.

In its brief, Young Americans for Freedom notes that the “Supreme Court has conclusively invalidated schemes like the one at issue here, finding the First Amendment trumps an illusory or sham government-speech argument.”

The Cato Institute likewise points out that “under the district court’s reasoning, there is no limit to what a state could force into the mouths of professional development instructors.” 

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons notes that “if continuing education courses are stripped of First Amendment protection, then red states like Idaho and Montana could require that all continuing legal and medical education courses include statements about harm from illegal immigration.”

Do No Harm thanks the late Dr. Marilyn Singleton for helping advance this lawsuit.

American Medical Association Wants Researchers to Embrace Extremist Gender Ideology

,

One would think that a person who is pregnant must be, by definition, a woman. Well, according to draft style guidance under consideration by the American Medical Association (AMA), that’s not always the case.

The AMA is now considering codifying the most extreme manifestations of gender ideology into its style guidance for medical publications, with the organization’s Manual of Style Committee calling for public review and comment on its “Draft Guidance on Reporting Gender, Sex, Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation, and Age in Medical and Scientific Publication.”

Commenters can share their thoughts about the proposed guidance with the American Medical Association here.

The proposed guidance advises researchers to use gender-neutral terminology when writing or editing medical literature. For instance, the guidance recommends using “pregnant people” over “pregnant women” in service of gender inclusivity.

“In discussing pregnancy and parenting, use gender-neutral (nongendered) terms that are inclusive of all gender identities, such as pregnant people, pregnant individuals, pregnant adolescents, persons with childbearing potential, parents-to-be, expectant parents, nonpregnant partners, and parents,” the draft guidance reads. “The terms caregiving and caregiver can also be used to be inclusive of nonparents in direct care roles.”

However, the guidance does permit the word “woman” to be used to refer to a pregnant person … so long as the individual’s gender identity is “known.”

“Although there is not universal agreement on use of the term birthing parent, it may be used for clarity in contexts where simply using ‘parent’ could be confusing or too vague,” the draft guidance continues.

If that isn’t contorted enough, the AMA draft guidance also advises researchers not to use the term “mothering” and use gender neutral terms such as “parenting” instead. 

Do No Harm commissioned a poll in July that found 93 percent of black adults prefer the term “mother” to the term “birthing person.”

Many of the recommendations in the draft guidance echo the AMA’s previous commitments to use “inclusive language” – for instance, the guidance recommends using the singular “they” pronoun to refer to individuals whose pronouns are not “known.”

Additionally, the AMA guidance advises the phrase “‘sex assigned at birth” rather than simply sex.

The AMA guidance advises researchers to “avoid the terms born, biological or biologically, or genetic or genetically when referring to birth sex assignment” as these could have “inaccurate and have negative implications.” 

Despite being a scientific organization, the AMA is promoting ideology over biological reality, promoting “sex as a characteristic beyond a binary framework.”

The AMA says this is more “inclusive” of “transgender populations” – but later defines “transgender” individuals as those whose gender identity is different from their “assigned sex at birth.” The AMA seems to thus erroneously conflate sex and gender identity to justify its terminology.

The guidance also defines gender as a “social construct” and cites the controversial gender activist organization GLAAD to buttress this point. 

When defining gender identity, the AMA draft guidance recommends researchers consult “The Radical Copyeditor’s Style Guide for Writing About Transgender People” for more information about how to use verbs referring to gender identity. This “style guide” views language as a means of advancing gender ideology and “serving the ends of access, inclusion, and liberation, rather than maintaining oppression and the status quo.”

The guidance is available for review and comment until September 30, 2024, after which it will be revised and published as guidance from the AMA.

Commenters can share their thoughts with the AMA here.

Cleveland Clinic Scrubs Racially Discriminatory Program From Website After Do No Harm Complaint

RICHMOND, VA; August 27, 2024 – After being hit with a federal civil rights complaint from Do No Harm and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), the Ohio-based Cleveland Clinic appears to have scrubbed all mention of a racially discriminatory program from its website.

Do No Harm and WILL filed the complaint against the Cleveland Clinic over two programs – the Minority Stroke Program and the Minority Men’s Health Center – that illegally discriminated against patients based on their race.

The complaint noted that these programs implement “racial preferences” and establish “criteria or methods of administration which subject individuals to discrimination” in violation of federal civil rights law.

Now, the Minority Men’s Health Center’s page no longer appears on the Cleveland Clinic’s website; an archived version of the website shows how the page previously appeared.

“This takedown is an initial win, but Do No Harm would like to receive confirmation that patients of all races and ethnicities are now welcomed for treatment at the two Cleveland Clinic programs we highlighted in our complaint,” said Dr. Jared Ross, Senior Fellow at Do No Harm. “Do No Harm will continue working to eliminate racial bias and political ideology from all aspects of medicine.”

“While racial identity politics are often problematic wherever they occur, in healthcare, the problem can engender serious stakes, including life and death matters,” said WILL Associate Counsel Cara Tolliver. “When it comes to healthcare, providers, like Cleveland Clinic, should be simply extending care efforts to all patients who need it, regardless of their race and in accordance with law – not relying on racial stereotypes as a proxy for legitimate health risks.”

Do No Harm applauds this change. Medical institutions should not implement racial preferences when adjudicating who receives medical care, nor should they segregate care based on recipients’ race. 

Read the original complaint here.

New Data Validate UCLA Medical School Admissions Scandal

Racial preferences in college admissions have been illegal in California since the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996. That hasn’t deterred the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, according to a story published by the Washington Free Beacon in May.   

The Free Beacon story uses two pieces of evidence to assert that the school is engaging in race-based admissions. First, interviews with faculty reveal that Dean of Admissions Jennifer Lucero has prioritized race in admissions. Second, data published by the Free Beacon reveal a significant increase in the proportion of black and Hispanic matriculants around the time that Lucero assumed her current position.

In tandem, these two pieces of evidence are strongly suggestive of an agenda to enforce racially conscious admissions. Still, a skeptic might raise the possibility that the demographics of the applicant pool shifted, and that the timing of that shift happened to coincide with Lucero’s appointment. This is a far-fetched proposition, and now we can say definitively that it’s not the case. 

Data received through a records request reveals that the demographics of applicants have barely changed in the last five years. The share of white or Asian applicants have never fallen below 72% or exceeded 75%, while the share of black or Hispanic applicants never fell below 18% or exceeded 20%.

Figure 1. UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine Demographics

Before Lucero took over in June 2020, the proportion of black or Hispanic matriculants almost perfectly mirrored the proportion of black or Hispanic applicants. The same goes for white or Asian matriculants and applicants. Divergence emerges after Lucero took over in June 2020. In only two years – between 2019 and 2021 – the share of white or Asian matriculants decreased from 73% to 57% while the share of black or Hispanic matriculants nearly doubled, from 16% to 30%.

The evidence is definitive: The Geffen School of Medicine has sullied their admissions process to the detriment of patient care.

We remain eager to connect with students who applied to UCLA’s medical school but were not accepted. If you or someone you know might be a fit, please connect with us.

The American College of Emergency Physicians Chooses DEI Activism Over Evidence-Based Medicine

Do No Harm has spent the past several years exposing the lack of evidence behind narratives used to push harmful DEI in medical schools and healthcare more generally. Unfortunately, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) is the latest to platform these talking points. 

ACEP Now, the official publication of ACEP, published an opinion article earlier this month by Dr. Jayne Kendall titled “Why Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Matter in Medical Education,” which argued against the EDUCATE Act and for DEI efforts in medical schools. ACEP has previously gone on the record opposing the legislation as well.

The EDUCATE Act, which Do No Harm has endorsed, was introduced by Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC) in March. Specifically, the bill would defund DEI programs that encourage racial discrimination, defund medical schools with DEI offices, and require accreditors to ensure they do not encourage DEI initiatives.

The opinion article argues that this legislation would hinder efforts to improve “health equality” and that DEI efforts are essential to positive health outcomes. In doing so, the article makes reference to numerous unsubstantiated theories. 

For instance, the article gestures favorably toward the idea that “racial concordance” would improve minority patients’ health outcomes. This idea proposes that patients have better health outcomes after seeing physicians of the same race.

“Literature has demonstrated that when patients seek treatment from individuals of their own race or ethnicity, they are more likely to take their prescriptions and engage in prevention services,” the article reads. 

But existing research does not support the idea that racial concordance improves health outcomes. As a Do No Harm analysis of the evidence has shown, “four of five existing systematic reviews of racial concordance in medicine show no improvement in outcomes.”

In short, ACEP is publishing a political narrative that lacks evidential backing.

However, the mistakes do not stop there; the article also cites a paper published in the Journal of the National Medical Association in 2019 titled “Diversity improves performance and outcomes.” While the paper has been extensively cited to buttress arguments supporting DEI in healthcare, its contents don’t actually deliver on its title’s promises, as Do No Harm Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb previously demonstrated.

Most of that paper focuses on outcomes in areas unrelated to medicine; only three of the 16 studies the paper examines to draw its conclusions have to do with diversity in the medical field. Moreover, the studies it examines don’t show that diversity improves health outcomes at all.

“So, many articles that claim that diversity improves patient outcomes cite a paper with an intriguing title that claims a result that does not exist,” Goldfarb wrote. “The ‘evidence’ in favor of such claims proves to be a shell game.”

While a medical association opposing efforts to rein in DEI is troubling in itself (though predictable), it’s more disturbing to see such a marked departure from evidence-based medicine. 

But if anything, this is further confirmation that Do No Harm and like-minded organizations are on the side of the evidence.

Once Again, Advocates for Child Gender Transitions Resort to Flawed Research

A recent opinion article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association advocates for a comprehensive approach to preserve children’s access to gender medical interventions. In doing so, it argues that denying youth access to so-called “gender-affirming care,” which includes puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, harms mental health outcomes, citing a study also published in JAMA.

There’s just one problem: that study did not show significant mental health improvements among youth treated with these interventions. 

The opinion piece, like countless others attempting to argue for these dangerous and unproven procedures, invokes faulty research to prop up its agenda.

Titled “Moving Beyond Statements to Protect Transgender Youth,” the article is authored by doctors at Connecticut Children’s Hospital, which performs gender surgical procedures and other medical interventions on children. The authors argue that children’s hospitals should form robust partnerships and engage with community stakeholders to fight attempts to restrict minors’ access to gender medical interventions.

Yet crucially, the authors hinge their claim on the idea that children need these irreversible interventions for the sake of their mental health.

“The longer care is delayed, the greater the negative impact to mental health,” the authors write, citing a 2022 study.

That study, authored by researchers affiliated with Seattle Children’s Hospital, one of the foremost practitioners of gender medical interventions for minors, claims to observe evidence that so-called “gender-affirming care” is associated with decreased depression and suicidality. A look underneath the hood, however, shows that the study is profoundly flawed.

The study compares two groups of youths, one receiving interventions including puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, and the other not.

The research team observes no statistically significant changes in depression or suicidality among the treatment group from initiation to one-year follow up.

This fact, however, does not stop the Connecticut Children’s doctors from arguing that gender-affirming care is necessary for youth mental health.

Moreover, the study fails to explain why the comparison group did not receive these medical interventions; did they simply choose not to? This context is conspicuously absent.

However, the researchers do observe heightened depression and suicidality in the comparison group of youths. The researchers posit that this worsening mental health represents the counterfactual for what would have happened to the treatment group if they hadn’t received puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. This assumption is flawed for two reasons. 

First, whether a child received blockers or hormones isn’t random. Rather, those patients with the worst mental health or declining mental health may have been denied access to puberty blockers and hormones due to their poor or declining mental health. Likely, their decline in mental health during the study period is totally unrelated to their not receiving blockers or hormones. 

Second, there is massive attrition from the comparison group, which featured 38 patients three months after the study commenced but just seven patients after one year, when the study concludes. Likely, patients whose mental health improved either became part of the treatment group or left the gender clinic altogether. Had they remained in the comparison group the results would have looked very different. 

It seems to be a recurring theme that arguments in favor of gender medical interventions for children invariably invoke deeply flawed research.

In fact, the study the doctors cite undercuts their own premise. The study instead shows that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones do not significantly improve mental health outcomes.

Several European nations, including the United Kingdom, Finland, and Sweden, have recognized this, with each having conducted exhaustive reviews of the evidence and concluded that gender medical interventions for children have risks that outweigh the benefits. 

For instance, the United Kingdom’s Cass Report concluded that there is “remarkably weak evidence” behind the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to treat adolescents.

Unfortunately, as evidenced by the Connecticut Children’s doctors’ call to arms, the American medical field is still lagging far behind. 

This article demonstrates yet another example of advocates using faulty reasoning and porous research to advance an agenda that not only ignores the weight of scientific evidence, but is ultimately harmful to children.

Medical School Ditches Discriminatory Scholarship Program After Do No Harm Complaint

,

The Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine (WMU) discontinued a scholarship program that racially discriminated against student applicants following a federal civil rights complaint from Do No Harm.

WMU maintained a scholarship program called the Underrepresented in Medicine Visiting Elective Scholarship Program designed to provide fourth-year medical students with financial support, mentorship, and networking opportunities. The scholarship was operated in collaboration with the Office of Resident Affairs and Office of Diversity, and was intended to help achieve diversity in the medical field.

However, the scholarship’s eligibility criteria stated that applicants “must” identify as “African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander.”

Notably absent from this list were white and Asian students; because of their race, they were denied these opportunities.

Do No Harm Senior Fellow Mark J. Perry filed a civil rights complaint against WMU with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), alleging the eligibility criteria were racially discriminatory and violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The OCR confirmed in December 2023 that it had opened a federal investigation into WMU over the complaint.

Then, on Monday, August 19, the OCR notified Do No Harm that WMU had discontinued the Underrepresented in Medicine Visiting Elective Scholarship Program. The school’s website no longer advertises the program, and the OCR said it found no evidence the program was still operational.

While it is disappointing that WMU ceased its racial discrimination only after a federal investigation had commenced, Do No Harm nevertheless applauds this outcome. Racial discrimination has no place in medical schools or anywhere else, and WMU students are better off without their university denying them scholarship opportunities and discriminating against them based on their race. Any medical school student who is aware of financial aid or other programs at his or her school that are restricted based on race can file an anonymous tip here.

“WMU is one of dozens of U.S. medical schools that have either discontinued or removed race-based eligibility criteria from a discriminatory program as a result of our ongoing efforts to challenge illegal discrimination that violates Title VI,” Perry said. “Medical schools are finding out that there is no legal defense for racial discrimination and once our complaints are opened for federal civil rights investigations, the OCR has consistently ruled in our favor and forced schools to stop discriminating. U.S. medical schools should be on notice that they have a legal obligation to enforce federal civil rights laws, and it is Do No Harm’s mission to successfully challenge all illegal discrimination until each of the 200 US medical schools is free from discrimination based on race or sex.”

Read the story in National Review.

Do No Harm Asks Supreme Court to Reverse Biology-Denying Court Decisions

, ,

On Wednesday, August 14, 2024, Do No Harm submitted an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up West Virginia v. B.P.J., a case concerning a West Virginia law that prohibited boys from joining girls’ sports teams. 

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause and was unlawful under Title IX, as it discriminated based on gender identity. Do No Harm is asking the court to acknowledge scientific reality and reverse the Fourth Circuit’s decision, as well as the Ninth Circuit’s decision in a similar case about Idaho’s law protecting women’s sports.

In the brief, Do No Harm illustrates how the appeals courts’ decisions are grounded upon faulty premises regarding biological sex and gender. Do No Harm explains that:

  • Sex is distinct from gender identity; while sex is binary and rooted in biology, gender identity is a psychological state.
  • Intersex conditions are rare disorders of sexual development and should not be conflated with transgender identity.
  • Biology-denying interventions such as puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are dangerous, lack compelling evidence, and carry unknown risks in addition to known physical harms.
  • Despite this, both the Fourth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit assumed that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones were necessary to treat gender dysphoria.
  • The appeals courts falsely conflated sex with gender identity to argue the laws discriminated on the basis of gender identity.
  • The Ninth Circuit falsely overstated the number of intersex individuals by orders of magnitude, while conflating intersex individuals with individuals who identify as transgender.

Do No Harm hopes the Supreme Court corrects the scientific errors underpinning the lower courts’ decisions, and promptly reverses them.

Read the full text of the amicus brief here.

Do No Harm Calls on Medical Associations to Follow the ASPS and Reject ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ for Minors

Earlier this week, City Journal published a statement from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons questioning the evidence for so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors. The ASPS told Manhattan Institute fellow Leor Sapir that there is “considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy for the use of chest and genital surgical interventions” for minors and that “the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty.” 

Moreover, the ASPS stated it is currently reviewing its initiatives to promote evidence-based gender surgical care, and noted it has not endorsed any medical organization’s standards of care regarding child gender transitions.

Do No Harm applauds the ASPS for choosing to follow the evidence, and urges other medical associations to do the same.

The efficacy of gender medical interventions for minors is not well supported by existing evidence, and these treatments carry unknown dangers and uncertain long-term effects. This is true of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and other interventions – not just gender surgical procedures.

Several European countries already recognize the experimental nature of “gender-affirming care” for minors and have limited children’s access to these interventions. It’s time for the U.S. to follow suit.

However, this can only happen when leading medical institutions acknowledge the obvious reality: that so-called “gender-affirming care” is grounded not in well-established science, but ideological zeal. 

It is incumbent upon all physicians to speak up for evidence-based care and reject dangerous treatments. It is not too late for the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, and many others to return to the truth.

Stanley Goldfarb, MD

Do No Harm, Board Chairman

Hear from Do No Harm’s fellows on the ASPS statement.

Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Richard Bosshardt: 

“As a proud member of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons for over thirty years, a father of three, and grandfather of six, I have viewed the uncritical rush to embrace experimental gender-affirming care for minors with dismay and alarm. 

I have wondered and even asked on the ASPS discussion forums why my society, which should be in the forefront of discussions regarding transgender surgery, has not weighed in on this issue. Those pushing for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery on minors have grossly oversimplified something which is incredibly complex and poorly understood as though this is ‘settled science,’ when it is not even close.

I am proud that my society has finally stepped up and raised serious concerns about this practice. Plastic surgeons appreciate better than any other specialist the unique and daunting challenges of transsexual surgery. Even in the best of hands and ideal circumstances, these are among the most complex and challenging surgeries, with a high rate of complications, some of which can be permanently crippling and with no good data on long term results in minors.

Such operations in minors who have not gone through normal puberty amount to nothing less than childhood experimentation. Given the overwhelming evidence that should raise red flags about gender-affirming care, I hope that the courageous stance of the ASPS will be the first of many such organizations to do the same.”

Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Travis Morrell:

“The American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) deserves credit for being the first major U.S. medical society to simply acknowledge the obvious truth: we don’t have a solid evidence-base for the chest and genital surgery pushed widely by other American medical societies. 

Yet mastectomy is widely performed on 15, 16, and 17-year-olds, and sometimes even 12-year-olds, despite the lack of evidence of long-term help or safety.

The ASPS acknowledgement is the first crack in a dam – a crumbling dam of activism struggling to hold back a sea of evidence. Following evidence-based decisions of multiple European medical organizations, most practicing American physicians are hoping that their leadership will soon quit deferring to activists and instead make statements defending their patients with accurate assessments of the evidence.”

Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Miriam Grossman:

“The evidence for surgically modifying the body to treat gender dysphoria, an emotional disorder, has always been remarkably weak, in minors as well as adults. In the absence of robust evidence of long-term benefit, how is it that surgeons have permanently disfigured EVEN ONE PATIENT, let alone thousands? Will the ASPS issue a warning to its members that youth who reject the reality of their sexed bodies need psychotherapy, not operations? While the ASPS’s new position, as expressed in their email to Mr. Sapir, is a major breakthrough, many questions remain.”

Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Aida Cerundolo:

“Medical ‘gender-affirming’ care for children is the canary in the coal mine. The embrace of ideology and subjective reality over evidence and truth threaten the integrity of all of medicine, risking patient harm. As an increasing number of patients emerge from life-altering gender-affirming treatments realizing that gender was not the cause of their emotional distress, the harm will become impossible to ignore. It seems the ASPS recognizes this weighty decision and has chosen in favor of patient well-being by prioritizing evidence above all else.”

Do No Harm Patient Advocate Chloe Cole: 

“It’s bittersweet to see the gender industry now acknowledging the harm of cross-sex modification surgeries for minors. If they had recognized this sooner, it’s possible my detransitioned friends and I wouldn’t have lost our breasts and other organs. We cannot allow them to walk away as though they just realized the truth. This was always wrong – irreversibly harming children for profit is unconscionable, and it’s time the entire industry is held accountable for these grave injustices. Still, I’m relieved to see medical professionals finally moving in the right direction.”

International Med Student Org Suspends Israeli Students Over Allegations of ‘Genocide’ Denial

The International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations (IFMSA) last week suspended the Israeli medical students’ association for two years. The decision appears to be another disturbing example of medical institutions discriminating against Jewish students.

IFMSA is a massive organization composed of medical students’ associations from more than 100 countries, and membership provides medical students with valuable opportunities for professional advancement. In a press release addressing the issue, IFMSA cited “threats against medical students, online harassment and hate speech” allegedly perpetrated by the Israeli organization for its decision. 

But that’s not the full story. 

Israeli news outlet Ynet reported that the Israeli medical students’ organization was suspended due to accusations of “a lack of morals and humanitarian values” revolving around Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza. 

And according to Miri Shvimmer, president of the Federation of Israeli Medical Students, the suspension was also motivated by accusations of “genocide” denial and the mere presence of Israeli medical students in the Israeli military.

“The motion for suspension was presented based on allegations including: genocide denial; the fact that members of the Israeli medical students’ organization serve in the Israeli military; [and] the presence of students from Ariel University in the organization” in addition to the other allegations, Shvimmer said, characterizing the attacks as “baseless” and “libelous.”

Rather than focus on advancing its members’ medical education, IFMSA appears more concerned with punishing and disadvantaging Jewish medical students due to its hatred of Israel. This is blatantly discriminatory, unethical, and antithetical to the mission of any respectable medical institution.

“This is yet another example of pervasive antisemitism in medicine, unprecedented and founded on baseless accusations of ‘genocide’ and ‘occupation,’” said Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Jared Ross.

“This injustice deprives Israeli medical students of valuable international networking opportunities. However, the harm of this suspension extends to the entire world, as Israel is an international hub for medical technology development, including artificial intelligence, pill cameras, and surgical robots.”

According to Israel Medical Association chairman Dr. Zion Hagay, the motion for suspension was brought about by the Brazilian delegation following prompting from Palestinian medical students.

IFMSA claims in its press release that it “condemns all forms of discrimination based on nationality, ethnicity, personal characteristics, religion and other factors.” 

It seems that with this decision, that is not truly the case.

Read Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Jared Ross’ full statement below:

“I am shocked and disgusted by The International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations (IFMSA) decision to suspend Israel from membership for two years. This is yet another example of pervasive antisemitism in medicine, unprecedented and founded on baseless accusations of ‘genocide’ and ‘occupation.’ 

This injustice deprives Israeli medical students of valuable international networking opportunities, however, the harm of this suspension extends to the entire world, as Israel is an international hub for medical technology development, including artificial intelligence, pill cameras, and surgical robots.

During my visit to Israel in 2022, I witnessed firsthand as Jewish, Muslim, and Christian medical professionals in the Israeli Defense Force and Israeli National Ambulance Service worked together to save the lives of patients from all backgrounds, without regard for religion or ethnicity. Israel welcomes everyone to practice their faith with complete religious freedom, the only agenda is peace. 

I agree with the Minister of Health, Uriel Busso’s response, that this “is a political decision made without any factual basis and contrary to all moral and ethical principles, giving a boost to terrorist organizations.” I am in solidarity with Dr. Zion Hagay and the Israeli Medical Association, along with support from Germany, Italy, and Luxemburg in calling for a formal investigation of this blatant discrimination.”

Medical Schools Walk Back Discriminatory Scholarships After Do No Harm Complaints

, , ,

Two medical schools have dropped eligibility criteria from scholarships that excluded applicants based on race after Do No Harm filed complaints against the schools with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

The University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and Baylor University College of Medicine each offered scholarships aimed at medical students the schools defined as “underrepresented” in the field of medicine. The University of Pittsburgh’s scholarship, previously called the Carey Andrew-Jaja, MD (CAJ) Visiting Elective Scholarship Program for 4th Year Students Under-Represented in Medicine, offered visiting fourth-year students $2,000 in funding.

Yet the school defined “eligible candidates” as those “from the following backgrounds/heritage: African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders, and Native Alaskans.”

Similarly, Baylor University College of Medicine’s Underrepresented in Medicine (URiM) Visiting Student Scholarship offered four $1,500 scholarships to accepted medical students to cover traveling, housing, and similar expenses. Baylor restricted the program to medical students who were “underrepresented in medicine,” which it defined as “Black or African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American (American Indian, Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian), and Pacific Islander.”

Needless to say, distributing financial awards to students based on their race is not only immoral but illegal. Denying white and Asian students access to funding simply because they happened to be born in the wrong ethnic group is not in line with any medical school’s pedagogical mission and will only harm the medical field.

In response, Do No Harm Senior Fellow Mark J. Perry filed a federal civil rights complaint against the University of Pittsburgh in July 2022, alleging that the scholarship’s eligibility criteria were unlawful racial discrimination in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The OCR opened an investigation into the school the next month.

Perry filed a similar complaint against Baylor in July 2022 over its scholarship program, with the OCR opening an investigation in September 2022.

Since then, the medical schools have scrubbed the racial eligibility criteria from the programs’ descriptions.

The University of Pittsburgh’s scholarship is now titled “The Carey Andrew-Jaja, MD Visiting Elective Clerkship Program.” And, while applicants are still required to have an “interest” in diversity initiatives, the scholarship is no longer restricted to students of certain races. 

Similarly, Baylor’s scholarship has been renamed the “Health Equity Scholarship” and its description includes no mention of racial eligibility criteria. It should be noted, however, that the scholarship’s mission is still defined as “promot[ing] a diverse and engaged workforce.”

Nevertheless, Do No Harm applauds these changes. U.S. universities and medical schools should follow suit and end their illegal practices of prioritizing race in their admissions process and scholarship awards. 

“These outcomes at Pitt and Baylor are consistent with our past experience that once a medical school is investigated by OCR for illegal discrimination, there is no legal defense for a school to continue its race-based discrimination and it must open scholarships and programs to all students regardless of race,” Perry said. “Title VI is a very clear law, and the violations we’re challenging are very clear violations of a very clear law, so we have the law on our side. Medical schools have to learn that there are no ‘unless you have good intentions’ exceptions to Title VI, and discrimination based on race is still unlawful even if it advantages medical students of the ‘right’ races for the ‘right’ reasons. There is no good form of discrimination and Do No Harm is committed to challenging and stopping it in U.S. medical schools.”  

Medical schools should be on notice that Do No Harm remains steadfast and vigilant in our efforts to legally challenge any race-based discrimination that comes to our attention. If you are aware of any illegal race-based (or sex-based) discrimination in U.S. medical education, you can file an anonymous tip here.