Charleston,,South,Carolina,,Usa,Skyline,Over,The,Ashley,River.

The Medical University of South Carolina Responds to OCR Investigation

The Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) has made significant changes to discriminatory scholarships and programs in the College of Medicine that were named in a federal civil rights complaint filed by Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry.

We reported last December that MUSC was being investigated by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for eight scholarships and programs that discriminate on the basis of race/ethnicity or sex/gender identity.

As a result of the federal investigation, MUSC has either amended or dropped the programs that contained eligibility criteria that excluded applicants who are not defined as “underrepresented in medicine” (URM). Excluding potential applicants based on race/ethnicity is a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits such discrimination. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination based on sex/gender identity.

The OCR recently informed Dr. Perry that the investigation is being closed, as “credible information indicating that the complaint has been resolved” was received. Specifically, MUSC changed the “Underrepresented in Medicine Visiting Student Program,” which limited eligibility to students who are “Black/African American, Native American, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander,” to the “Achieving Health Equity by Advancing Diversity (AHEAD)” Visiting Student Program. The updated information states, “AHEAD-VSP is open to students from underrepresented groups” with no mention of specific race/ethnicity requirements to apply.

Figure 1. AHEAD-VSP at MUSC College of Medicine.

MUSC has also updated the narratives associated with its College of Medicine Diversity Scholarships:

  • The Jerry and Jenny Reeves, M.D. Diversity Endowed Scholarship description now states, “particular attention will be given to applicants that demonstrate academic merit and financial need” instead of “applicants who represent a group that is underrepresented in medicine.”
  • The Rose Delores Gibbs, M.D. Endowed Scholarship was available to “a current female URM student,” but now includes the same statement regarding merit and need without mentioning sex or gender identity.
  • The Costal Community Foundation Thaddeus Bell, M.D. Scholarship was limited to applicants who are “Black/African American, Native American, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander,” but is no longer listed on the diversity scholarships webpage.

More changes have been made at MUSC as a result of the OCR investigation. Programs that have been completely removed from the university’s Student Diversity Programs page include the Student Diversity Transition Forum, the Visiting Externship Program (which invited “URM medical students [African American, Native American, Hispanic, and Native Hawaiian]” to apply), the Student Ambassadors and Peer Mentors Program, and the Residency Diversity Forum. Finally, the Mentoring Ensures Medical School Success (MEMS) program, which was previously described as an opportunity “to provide College of Medicine under-represented in medicine students” with mentoring, now says it “does not exclude any student based on race, ethnicity, or sex.”

Figure 2. Updated MEMS program description at MUSC College of Medicine.

Does your school offer scholarships or academic programs based on race/ethnicity or sex/gender identity instead of merit? Please let us know – anonymously and securely.

Tennessee,On,The,Map

This Tennessee Medical School Proves Our Point

Tennessee medical schools don’t like that we’re calling them out for promoting divisive and discriminatory ideas. The dean of medicine at East Tennessee State University’s Quillen College of Medicine responded to our recent report with an email to faculty, which a tipster sent us. It shows that medical elites have no desire to change course – even though they’re actively undermining their mission and hurting future physicians and patients alike.

Here’s part of the email Dean William Block sent:

“Recently, an article in the Tennessee Star reported on a group referring to themselves as ‘Do No Harm’ that claims to be ‘exposing the infiltration of woke ideologies in Tennessee medical schools.’ The premise is that medical schools are short changing the public and future physicians by spending time on concepts related to DEI and social determinants of health and not teaching medical knowledge.”

So far, so true. DEI has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with medicine. But the dean isn’t sorry:

“As we encounter resistance to improving the lives of all of our patients we must continue to strive to be clear in our messaging and focused on the values that matter.”

Those values are crystal clear from the questions that the Admissions Committee asks applicants. Anyone who wants to attend the Quillen College of Medicine must state how they will “foster an environment of change” in the context of “social justice, systemic racism, and equity for all.” This isn’t medical education. It’s political indoctrination.

Recruiting activists is far from the only example of how East Tennessee State University’s is forcing divisive and discriminatory ideas on faculty and future physicians alike. Tennessee lawmakers might want to do some digging into the Quillen College of Medicine, for the sake of the students it teaches and the patients they will one day treat.

Has woke ideology taken over your medical school? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.

AAD annual meeting cover

DEI is On the Agenda for the American Academy of Dermatology’s Annual Meeting

,

The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) seems more interested in pushing DEI and woke indoctrination onto the next generation of dermatologists than teaching them how to be good doctors, and the agenda for the 2023 annual meeting proves it.

A concerned citizen sent us the link to one of the AAD 2023 Annual Meeting’s sessions titled, “DEI in GME: Thoughts and Considerations.” Attendees will learn strategies for the recruitment and selection of “residency applicants and faculty of diverse backgrounds” and “best practices in teaching inclusivity and equity in the dermatologic care of patients.” The goal? AAD says it right in the session description:

 By cultivating our youngest generation of dermatologists, we can make our dream of creating a diverse and inclusive specialty a reality.

But that’s not all. AAD is devoting three hours to the “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” symposium, where participants will be instructed in The Importance of DEI in Dermatology, DEI in Medical Education: The AAD Skin of Color Curriculum, DEI Leadership in Dermatology, and Equity in International Dermatology. Why is the AAD emphasizing diversity and equity over meritocracy and individual patient needs?

Somehow, the AAD can even inject identity politics into electronic health records, telehealth, augmented intelligence, and smartphone apps. The session titled “Technology in Dermatology: Tailoring Solutions to Your Practice and Optimizing Joy & Impact” aims to present the “relevant clinical needs” related to these tools, but through “a lens toward usability, inclusivity, equity, and meaningful impact” on the patients and dermatologists who use them.

The AAD has published several articles and commentaries in its Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology that echo the DEI drumbeat. In Understanding Health Outcomes and Health Equity, the physician author notes that, in addition to ancestry and genetics, “structural and individual racism” are factors that contribute to patient outcomes. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: The Visionary Future of JAAD notes the focus on “the grave realities of structural racism, systemic inequality, and social determinants of health across all facets of our society.” The journal promises to be “a guiding voice” in the research data and the education of dermatologists in these concepts.

Topics in the conference agenda are reflected in the AAD’s strategic plan for 2021-2023, which aims to integrate DEI into all committees, ensure equity in leader selection, focus research funding on health disparities based on skin color, and expand recruitment and development of “dermatologists who are underrepresented in medicine.”

From the AAD strategic plan 2021-2023 (January 26, 2021).

Bottom line: The AAD has invested in the dissemination of the DEI agenda and is highlighting divisive concepts throughout its upcoming annual meeting. Patients want dermatologists who know how to diagnose and treat their skin problems, not woke ideologues who place identity politics over medical science.

Is your professional organization pushing DEI ahead of the science of healthcare? Do No Harm wants to hear from you via our secure online portal.

Beautiful,Pink,Flowering,Redbud,Trees,On,A,Sunny,Day,In

Missouri Students and Physicians Want DEI Out of Med School

We’ve covered how woke activists are desperately trying to stop Missouri from passing a common-sense bill to get divisive ideology out of medical schools. It’s equally true that medical students and physicians support this bill, along with citizens across the state. We’ve been tipped off to messages that prove it.

To choose just one: In support of Rep. Ben Baker’s bill, a courageous MD student at the University of Missouri Columbia School of Medicine quietly documented how the institutional leaders are trying to stop it. That includes a message from a chair for the Mizzou student chapter of the AMA and Missouri State Medical Association regarding “Steps You Can Take to Protect DEI in Our Curriculum.”

The student also documented many ways Mizzou is pushing wokeness on future physicians, such as:

The MU School of Medicine Office of Medical Education has a way for students to anonymously report one another for “microaggressions”… this is vague enough to keep anyone who slightly deviates from the woke script on their toes and afraid to stand up for what they believe to be right. This is a real threat to us.

Figure 1. Emails to MUSOM medical students.

The student also documented getting “official emails saying that we should post our pronouns in our emails and zoom names.” The student ends with a plea: “we should be able to rein in the madness.” That’s exactly what Rep. Baker’s bill would do.

The rapid rise of woke medical schools has driven students and physicians to support this bill. They are driven by deep concern for the medical profession and patient care.  The loudest woke activists don’t speak for Missouri’s medical professionals, much less the people of the Show-Me State. Rep. Baker deserves praise for fighting for their health and well-being – by fighting against the dangerous woke ideology of DEI.

MSMA Convention

The Missouri State Medical Association’s Dangerous Turn

Another state medical association is moving to embrace divisive ideology, threatening medical education and even endangering vulnerable children. First it was Oklahoma. Now it’s Missouri.

A tipster sent us details about the Missouri State Medical Association’s annual convention, which is scheduled for March 31st to April 2nd. That includes the resolutions the association will take up. The list includes:

  • Resolution #1 – Access to Gender-Affirming Surgery and Hormone Replacement Therapy for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Individuals 
  • Resolution #2 – Access to Puberty-Suppressing Hormone Blockers for Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth 
  • Resolution #3 – Allowing Transgender and Gender-Diverse Individuals to Change Their Gender Marker on Birth Certificates
  • Resolution #9 – Opposing Bans on Medical School DEI Requirements

The first three resolutions are shocking, giving the rapidly growing body of evidence showing that transgender treatments for children engender their physical and mental health. That evidence has caused many European countries to abandon the very approach that the Missouri State Medical Association is supporting.

Figure 1. From Missouri State Medical Association House of Delegates, Resolution 1.

This also follows the horrifying revelations from a whistleblower at a Missouri children transgender center. She went public with the de facto child abuse she witnessed on a daily basis. Why is the association considering putting vulnerable children at continued risk? The final resolution is also concerning. State Rep. Ben Baker has introduced a bill that would roll back DEI requirements at Missouri’s public medical schools. This is essential to ensuring the quality of education and cultivating the best possible physicians who will provide the best possible care to all patients. Yet this medical association is apparently more concerned with promoting divisive ideology.

Figure 2. 2023 MSMA Convention General Session for March 31.

We’re already hearing from Missouri physicians who are deeply disturbed by their association’s radical turn. Many are considering resigning their membership, and no wonder. The Missouri State Medical Association should be focused on evidence-based medicine and improving people’s lives, instead of undermining these noble goals.

Missouri,State,Capitol,With,Pink,Magnolia,Tree,Flowers,In,Spring

Missouri Woke Activists Prove The Need For Rep. Baker’s Bill

Woke outrage is entirely predictable. Look no further than the loud opposition to Rep. Ben Baker’s groundbreaking bill in the Missouri legislature that would roll back divisive and discriminatory DEI at medical schools. It shows the depth that woke ideology has reached in Missouri med schools – and the lengths to which radical activists will go maintain their vise-grip on medical education.

The best example is a letter from 150 students from the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine. They write that prohibiting DEI mandates on campus “would discourage diversity in the health care workforce and exacerbate existing health disparities.” Actually, the bill would ensure that medical students are admitted by merit, not skin color, leading to better physicians who will provide better care for everyone.

Figure 1. Letter from University of Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine students to Rep. Ben Baker, p. 1.

The students also complain that “decreasing the diversity of our student body would additionally put our school’s accreditation at risk.” This is fearmongering at its finest, and it shouldn’t sway state lawmakers.

The students conclude by demanding that state lawmakers “protect our school’s right to require DEI education.” Lawmakers should do exactly the opposite, and restore medical education that’s focused on medicine, not woke demands and indoctrination.

There are many more messages from woke activists. Yet they’re only proving the point that divisive ideology should be driven out of medical school. The quality of education and patient care depends on it. No wonder the Missouri legislature is moving forward with Rep. Baker’s common-sense bill.

DNH_Podcast_Thumbnail

S1E9: Standing Up Against Woke Ideology

,

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb and Benita Cotton-Orr discuss the role of government in implementing a woke approach in healthcare. Despite the federal bureaucracy’s embrace of woke ideology, they see hope in state-level politics and in emboldening medical professionals to speak out.

biden1

Biden Doubles Down On DEI Bureaucracy

The Biden administration is already the most woke in history. Now it’s embedding this divisive ideology even deeper in federal agencies.

That’s the reality of the President’s Feb. 23 Executive Order, “Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through The Federal Government.” It directs the federal bureaucracy to reach new levels of wokeness, including those that oversee and influence health care.

The President’s order compels all federal department and agency heads to establish “Agency Equity Teams” within 30 days. What’s more, they must submit an annual “Equity Action Plan” on diversity, equity, and inclusion to a new White House “Steering Committee on Equity.”

What does this mean in practice? Everything from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will be forced to create these teams and draft these plans. That surely means more staff focused on DEI and more policies that force woke ideology on physicians, patients, medical schools, and health care as a whole. The executive order also includes a command that agencies spend additional taxpayer money on woke constituencies.

This de facto DEI mandate for the federal government is bad enough. What makes it worse is the lack of transparency. The White House doesn’t have to disclose these new equity plans, meaning the public could be kept in the dark.

Americans deserve to know how the federal government is forcing divisive and discriminatory ideology on society. For that matter, we deserve better than a woke federal bureaucracy at all.

Portrait,Of,Female,Surgeon,Wearing,Scrubs,And,Protective,Glasses,In

Twelve Universities Are Violating Civil Rights Laws By Partnering With The Perry Initiative

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A federal civil rights complaint has been filed against twelve schools and universities that partner with an organization that openly discriminates on the basis of sex.

The Perry Initiative programs are for young women in high school who are interested in careers in orthopedic surgery, engineering, or both (The Perry Outreach Program), and for women in medical school (the Medical Student Outreach Program). Applicants for either program “must gender-identify as female or non-binary.” This requirement violates Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits such discrimination for recipients of Federal financial assistance.

Schools participating in The Perry Initiative that are named in the complaint are:

  1. Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics
  2. Yale University
  3. Wake Forest University
  4. New York University
  5. University of New Mexico
  6. University of Pittsburgh
  7. Duke University
  8. Albert Einstein College of Medicine
  9. University of Arizona
  10. University of Iowa
  11. Oregon Health and Science University
  12. University of Virginia

These 12 schools and universities are active partners with The Perry Initiative and hosts of the outreach programs, which are offered exclusively for females in violation of Title IX.

The complaint, filed by Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry, asks the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights to investigate each school for “using their resources to advertise, promote, host, and partner” with The Perry Initiative. Program flyers for the discriminatory events at each school clearly demonstrate that the programs are limited to applicants who meet specific sex and gender identity criteria. Also, the flyers prominently display the partner schools that host Perry Initiative events on their campuses.

Figure 1. Perry Initiative Medical Student Outreach Program promotional flyer from Duke University (Durham, NC).

Along with some major orthopedic equipment companies and academic medical centers, the Duke University School of Medicine’s Department of Orthopedic Surgery is listed as a corporate sponsor of The Perry Initiative.

Is your medical, nursing, or health professions school promoting or hosting a discriminatory program? Do No Harm wants to hear from you, and you may remain anonymous if you wish.

Stack,Of,Magazines

Another Medical Publisher Is Obsessed with Race

Why does Wiley Publishing care so much about scholars’ skin color? That’s the question based on the prominent medical research publisher’s new “DE&I Statement.” It’s similar to the race fixation at the publisher of The Lancet, which we previously covered. It appears Wiley is moving toward selecting scholars, reviewers, and staff based on race – discrimination that is sure to hold back medical research.

Wiley makes clear from the start that it’s drinking from the woke Kool-Aid:

“Wiley is committed to implementing sustainable and positive change to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion through the editorial processes and policies of its publications. This includes encouraging diversity, equity, and inclusivity within our editorial teams, reviewers, and authors as appropriate and consistent with local regulations.”

Wiley is implementing these concepts by adopting the diversity data collection standards created by the “Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing.” It will now ask scholars and reviewers to answer a host of questions about their identity, including:

  • How would you identify yourself in terms of race?
  • What are your ethnic origins or ancestry?
  • With which gender do you most identify?

The standards are explicitly designed to “ensure inclusion and diversity are integrated into publishing activities and strategic planning.” In practice, that likely means Wiley will solicit research from scholars based in part on their skin color, not just the quality of their research, with a similar race focus dictating who reviews submissions. The name for that is discrimination.

Let’s be clear: Putting race at the center of medical scholarship hurts medical scholarship. Wiley should be focused on finding the best research, researchers, and reviewers, regardless of what they look like or where they come from. Anything less is insulting to medical scholars – and injurious to medical progress.

DNH_StaffThumbnail_Chloe2x

Meet Chloe Cole, Patient Advocate

Chloe Cole is an 18 year old detransitioner from The Central Valley of California. She started her transition at 12 years old, puberty blockers and testosterone at 13 and a double mastectomy at 15 years old.

She is now a strong advocate against gender ideology.

DNH_ContentCards_OfficialComment

A Response to the BMJ article “Gender Dysphoria in Young People is Rising – And So Is Professional Disagreement”

It is vitally important to continue the fight to save young children, particularly adolescent girls, from hormonal treatments that may permanently alter their bodies, and surgeries that may lead to profound regret.

This conclusion by the prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) shows incredible weakness of the arguments that medical organizations in the United States have used in favor of so-called “gender affirming care.” Flawed evidence is being presented in testimonies in front of legislative bodies and in promulgating recommendations for treatments that clearly, according to Norwegian experts, has the potential for doing more harm than good.

BMJ 2023, Volume 380 (The BMJ: Leading Medical Research, News, Education, Opinion)

One of the key leaders of the evidence-based gender medicine movement, Dr. Gordon Guyatt, points out that the Endocrine Society guidelines vastly overstate the evidence for treating adolescents with new onset “gender dysphoria.”

Stanley Goldfarb, MD is the former associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine and chairman of Do No Harm.

ACGME conf cover

The ACGME Administers a New Dose of Woke at the Annual Educational Conference

,

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) launched its 2023 annual education conference titled Meaning in Medicine: Making a Difference. As we recently reported, the organization strives to provide GME program directors with “continuous learning and process improvement” in DEI and anti-racism. But the ACGME is ready to refresh those DEI credentials with no fewer than 11 woke sessions at the annual conference – and even virtual reality isn’t left out of the new indoctrination strategies. Speakers at these sessions are from the AAMC, AMA, ACGME, and other professional organizations, medical schools, and academic medical centers. Here are the descriptions of the sessions, in the ACGME’s own words.

SES032: Progress in Demographic Data Alignment in Medical Education to Advance Health Equity. This didactic session will: 1) review the final categories for ethnoracial demographic collecting and reporting and how the organizations came to this schema; 2) provide a review of the existing literature related to the phenomenon of racial concordance in physician care and the educational value of diversity in medical education; 3) highlight examples of how diversity in the physician workforce may improve health equity, but that alone is insufficient; and 4) discuss how collection of data may be traumatizing for some and how the field can work to mitigate that and expand concerns about how data is used to a discussion of psychological safety.

SES050: Reimagining Residency Selection: Promoting Equity and Reducing Bias in GME. Residency selection should also emphasize the value alignment of applicants with that of programs. However, selection processes at many institutions continue to place a significant emphasis on academic metrics, which creates unequitable processes and impact on selection of diverse candidates.

SES056: Imposter Syndrome: How it Holds Our Learners (and Us!) Back and What to Do about It. Women and minorities in medicine are more likely suffer from higher rates of imposter syndrome due to frequent microaggressions that undermine an individual’s confidence and self-esteem, which likely contributes to the pervasive gender and racial leadership gaps in academic medicine.

SES060: Addressing Structural Racism to Promote Equity and Well-Being in the Learning Environment. This didactic session will describe examples of the experiences of residents from various marginalized groups as was captured in the ACGME Equity MattersTM Foundations in DEI materials, followed by a scoping review of the existing literature related to the well-being of residents of color and a menu of evidence-informed options for program directors to leverage as they continue their journey toward equity and resident well-being.

SES067: International Medical Graduates Add Valuable Diversity to US GME. The presenters will describe the regulatory and structural barriers and biases that [international medical graduates] in US GME face and guide a discussion about how best to support and encourage IMGs.

SES071: Implicit Bias and Group Decision Making in the [Clinical Competency Committees] and [Program Evaluation Committees]. At the end of this session, participants will be able to recognize how unconscious bias can be introduced into common decisions made in CCCs and PECs and will have a framework to mitigate bias and avoid committee groupthink.

SES077: Holistic Review in Practice: Real Programs with Real Results. Participants will leave with an understanding of tangible practices and tools they might adapt and adopt to create more equitable selection processes for their own programs.

SES100: Plugging the Leak: Creating an Inclusive and Equitable Environment for UIM Residents. Roles of “safe peer space;” accountability by providing public data surveillance of residents terminated or on probation by race; holistic review of due process policies; early mentorship and networking; empowered ombudsman support; strategy to rectify assessment inequities; effective, longitudinal, and mandatory diversity and anti-racist education for all faculty members, staff members, and residents; oversight; and governance will be reviewed.

SES114: ACGME Equity Matters™: DEI Outcomes from the Learning Communities. Participants will learn about the ACGME Equity Matters initiative and hear from participants of its first cohort of Learning Communities about what they are doing to improve recruitment and retention at their organizations.

SES121: Virtual Reality: A Longitudinal Simulation Curriculum for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. As the physician workforce continues to become more diverse, it is imperative to educate residents on strategies to combat acts of discrimination as they recognize their own biases. This session will describe one Sponsoring Institution’s longitudinal DEI simulation journey utilizing virtual reality (VR) in medical education.

SES123: Standing Up to Patient Microaggressions. Cumulatively microaggressions are detrimental to learning, patient care, and well-being; effects are compounded for non-white individuals. To create an optimal clinical learning environment, everyone must learn to stand up to microaggressions consistent with the 2022 Association of American Medical Colleges Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion competencies!

Is this really the way to provide “meaning in medicine”? The only way that ACGME is “making a difference” at their conference is by advocating for diversity over meritocracy in GME and pounding more woke ideology into the heads of residency program directors.

Is your professional organization promoting divisive ideology in its national conferences? Do No Harm wants to hear from you via our secure online portal.

Kansas,State,Flag,Seal,Love,Heart,United,States,America,American

My Testimony to the Kansas House – And How the State Legislators Reacted To It

On February 1, I provided testimony to the Kansas State Legislature’s House Health and Human Services Committee (HHHSC) to present Do No Harm’s position opposing the radical ideologies based on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and anti-racism that have infiltrated medical education and the healthcare industry. But some members of the HHHSC were not willing to consider the objective facts that informed my presentation, and criticized them in a confrontational manner.

The main points of my testimony centered on how people are being seen and treated as groups – rather than as individuals – as a result of the divisive and destructive policies applied to medical education and patient care:

  • Workplaces and some state licensing boards use political ideology to determine how medical personnel are accepted into their organizations and how they will progress through their careers (e.g., requiring implicit bias training as a condition of employment or licensure).
  • Disparities in healthcare outcomes do exist; but they are largely due to poor access to care, not systemic racism or bias on the part of the patient care staff.
  • Procedures for acceptance into medical school are sacrificing achievement and merit in the name of diversity. Healthcare education is different in that, along with the school and the student, there is the need to consider what is best for the patient. The University of Kansas (KU) School of Medicine’s Urban Scholars program, which guarantees acceptance into the MD program upon completion, is an example of how certain groups of students are given preferential consideration instead of evaluating individual applicants on their academic achievements and qualifications.
  • Discriminatory practices have taken place in some healthcare institutions that are treating patients as groups instead of tailoring their treatment plans according to their individual needs. Healthcare providers are asked to view patients from a racial perspective instead of a clinical one.

After my 10-minute address about the effects of these DEI and anti-racism ideologies on the medical profession, there were some thoughtful questions posed by committee members who were seeking clarification on a particular point. However, not all the legislators were interested in engaging in a meaningful dialogue.

One member of the committee said he was “deeply offended” by my presentation and claimed that Do No Harm “advocate[s] for racist policies and practices” because of our stand against the concept of anti-racism. I explained that Ibram Kendi clearly communicates the intent of anti-racism when he states, “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” The representative moved on to the issue of infant and maternal mortality in Kansas, but refused to reflect on the scientific literature. The evidence shows how a lack of early prenatal care and reliable access to facilities that can care for patients with severe maternal complications contributes to this problem, not systemic racism in the healthcare industry. “We must be looking at different data,” he said. “I guess we’ll just agree to disagree.”

Similarly, the next representative insisted the cause of poor access to care “is arguably systemic racism.” Despite my rebuttal citing a lack of data to show that health disparities in minorities are due to bias on the part of healthcare providers, she reiterated that “DE&I and these sorts of practices are extremely important” to address them; otherwise, “it’s doomed to repeat itself.”

Another committee member asked me, “Why are you here, and what do you want from us?” I explained our proposal including the removal of DEI questions from the med school application process and education in divisive concepts like Critical Race Theory and anti-racism. Her recommendation was for Do No Harm to change its name, stating, “Your group is providing much more harm to the public.”

Finally, a representative who is also a primary care physician mentioned the KU Urban Scholars Program in his questioning, which was quite argumentative. It was difficult to get an answer in, but he asked if my comments were based on what was seen on an internet site, which is correct. Do No Harm filed a federal civil rights complaint against KU Medical Center for racial discrimination in the eligibility criteria for this program, which were publicly visible on its webpages. Although this committee member described Urban Scholars as “a hallowed program” at KU, the Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation into it earlier this year as a result of our complaint, which demonstrated how KUMC was violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by having race-based eligibility criteria for the program:  

Figure 1. KUMC Urban Scholars Program eligibility criteria (September 28, 2022).

Today, the same program’s webpage reflects that all race/ethnicity criteria for eligibility have been removed:

Figure 2. KUMC Urban Scholars Program eligibility criteria (February 17, 2023).

Here’s the takeaway from my experience in front of the Kansas HHHSC: This wasn’t an easy Q&A, and it demonstrates how the ideological left attacks ideas they don’t agree with, rather than being willing to engage in an informative and productive discussion. But, armed with the facts and evidence, it’s possible to pose a cogent and confident response in the face of confrontation and criticism. And, when discriminatory policies and programs are exposed, they can be corrected to align with federal law. Don’t let the confrontational tactics of the ideologues deter you from speaking out: Fight back with the truth.

Stanley Goldfarb, MD is the former associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine and chairman of Do No Harm.

Full video of the Kansas State Legislature House Health and Human Services Committee session can be seen here.

DNH_MediaHitGold_WSJ

Forcing Diversity When Lives Are on the Line

Our physicians should be the best of the best.

It’s heartening to see leaders of a prominent medical school acknowledge reality (“Med Schools Are Wrong on Rankings” by Fritz François and Gbenga Ogedegbe, op-ed, Feb. 16). The reason many medical schools have decided to abandon the U.S. News and World Report rankings is their inability to maintain excellence while pursuing politicized demands for racial diversity in their student bodies.

Read more at The Wall Street Journal.

Close,Up,Bandaged,Plush,Teddy,Bear,With,Stethoscope,Device,On

Missouri Lawmakers Want Answers About Transgender Center Child Abuse

A stunning 96 Missouri lawmakers are demanding an investigation into the Washington University Transgender Center. They just signed a public letter to the director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, and it deserves a read. They’re responding to the recent allegations of taxpayer fraud and child abuse at the center – allegations that shocked America.

The letter clearly conveys lawmakers desire to protect children and taxpayers:

Recent allegations raise profound concerns that the Center is abusing these vulnerable children, while also abusing taxpayers and the trust that patients put in this storied hospital. A thorough investigation from the state’s leading health care authority is needed to end any threat to the health and well-being of so many young Missourians.

Breaking stories about the Transgender Center are as sickening as they are shocking. According to Jamie Reed, who worked at the Center for four years, it has provided dangerous gender treatments to hundreds of children. It has apparently done so in the name of extreme gender ideology disguised as medical care, while deliberately hiding its actions…

Mrs. Reed goes on to describe how the Transgender Center provides children with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and referrals for sex-reassignment surgery – all while lying about the use and effects of these disturbing and often dangerous treatments. What’s more, it appears the Transgender Center may have paid for these treatments and procedures using taxpayer money from the state Medicaid program.

The lawmakers are equally clear in their call to action:

Attorney General Andrew Bailey has already launched an investigation of the Center, yet a corresponding investigation by the Department of Health is more than warranted. As our state’s main health care regulator through the Bureau of Hospital Standards, you can identify whether The Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital is adhering to the law and upholding the highest medical ethics… Vulnerable Missouri children are counting on you to protect their health and their futures.

Here’s hoping these lawmakers get answers fast. Missourians deserve to know what really happened at the center, for the sake of vulnerable children and taxpayers alike. And lawmakers around the country should be equally worried about what may be happening at transgender centers for children in their states.

Law,,Legislation,,Document.

If You Pay for Gender Transitions, You Should Pay For De-Transitions Too

Who’s going to cover the cost of gender de-transitions – that is, treatments that reverse a gender transition? For that matter, who’s going to cover the cost of ongoing treatments to address the harmful physical and mental effects of gender transitions?

A new bill in Florida would require employers who cover gender transitions to pay for the rest of these treatments, as well. This policy makes sense: Businesses should think twice before pushing invasive and life-altering treatments that many if not most people will come to regret.

This bill reflects basic facts about transgenderism. To start, it is often a temporary phase. Yet gender-reassignment surgeries can have permanent effects, including serious physical complications and major mental health issues. And those who take gender altering hormones can develop significant medical complications and attendant costs, including treatments to deal with the loss of bone density as well as psychological issues. At Do No Harm, we work with many people who are paying, in money and regret, for the treatments they received earlier in life.

Many employers no doubt cover gender transitions in order to score points with radical activists pushing extreme ideology on society. If they do that, they can’t just be allowed to walk away from the lifelong consequences of this ideology for patients. Doing so is a disservice to their employees and to society itself. It is the essence of putting political point-scoring ahead of individual well-being.

At Do No Harm, we support efforts that hold radical gender activists to account. Florida State Rep. Blaise Ingoglia deserves credit for this creative approach to protecting patients. Here’s hoping the Sunshine State continues to put patients first.

DNH_ContentCards_PressRelease

Pfizer Reverses Course, Changes Race-Based Fellowship Following Do No Harm Lawsuit

Last fall, Do No Harm sued pharmaceutical giant Pfizer over its Breakthrough Fellowship Program, a highly prestigious and competitive program which illegally excluded White and Asian candidates from applying.

The program’s requirements explicitly stated that applicants must “meet the program’s goals of increasing the pipeline for Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic and Native Americans.” 

In short – Pfizer was picking winners and losers based on their skin color. 

After a federal judge dismissed the case, Do No Harm immediately appealed, and following that appeal Pfizer has quietly – without any public announcement or fanfare – updated the Breakthrough Fellowships’ criteria. 

The new FAQ states: “You are eligible to apply for the Breakthrough Fellowship Program regardless of whether you are of Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, or Native American descent.” 

“Do No Harm is pleased that Pfizer recognizes its blatant racial discrimination is unlawful and immoral,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarm, MD, chairman of Do No Harm. “It is important to recognize that this significant change was made only after Do No Harm’s lawsuit, and only because Pfizer knows its fellowship is in jeopardy on appeal.”

Despite Pfizer’s under the radar change of course, Do No Harm will proceed with its lawsuit to ensure that Pfizer does not continue or resume its racial discrimination that has no place in society.  

About Do No Harm
Do No Harm is a diverse group of physicians, healthcare professionals, medical students, patients, and policymakers united by an ethical mission: Protect healthcare from a radical, divisive, and discriminatory ideology. They believe in making healthcare better for all – not undermining it in pursuit of a political agenda. Learn more at www.donoharmmedicine.org.