The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) published an article Wednesday attempting to debunk several so-called “myths” about diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts at medical schools.
But instead, the AAMC advanced claims that lacked evidence and resorted to ideological platitudes to defend its agenda.
Here’s what they said, and why they’re wrong:
The AAMC claims it’s a “myth” that “diversity efforts are resulting in unqualified students being accepted to medical school.”
Programs that prioritize race over merit are, by definition, prioritizing less qualified applicants over their more qualified peers. If a black or Hispanic student is chosen over a white or Asian student with better test scores, grades, and relevant experience, then less qualified students are being accepted into medical schools.
This practice is unquestionably occurring; we need only look at 2013-2016 admissions data analyzed by the American Enterprise Institute to see that black and Hispanic students were accepted at far higher rates than their white and Asian counterparts with similar grades and Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) scores.
To support its argument, the AAMC cites data showing MCAT scores and graduation rates have remained steady over the past five years.
But this is faulty reasoning; the average test scores of medical students in aggregate can remain steady while racial discrimination is still being practiced and less qualified applicants are being admitted to medical schools. Moreover, race-conscious admissions have been in place at numerous medical schools for far longer than five years, so the five-year range chosen by the AAMC is misleading.
Medical schools are also, by their own admission, deprioritizing test scores and grades in their admissions process. This is explicitly lowering standards to increase diversity.
For instance, numerous medical schools are outright ditching the MCAT, with the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine waiving MCAT requirements specifically for certain applicants from Historically Black Colleges and Universities. The MCAT itself also changed in 2015, spending more time on the “crucial role that sociocultural and behavioral determinants play in our health” and less on biology and physics.
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the second-largest teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School, deprioritized test scores for incoming medical residents in favor of “holistic reviews” that weighed candidates’ race. The school also required admissions personnel to undergo unconscious bias training.
At the University of California Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, admissions committee members bemoaned the school’s extraordinarily low admissions standards for minority students, stating that the school was becoming a “failed” institution, according to the Washington Free Beacon. In certain cohorts, “more than 50 percent of students failed standardized tests on emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics,” the Free Beacon reported. These tests typically have a 5 percent failure rate.
The bar for students deemed “underrepresented” is “as low as you could possibly imagine,” an admissions committee member told the Free Beacon. “It completely disregards grades and achievements.”
For yet another example, a 2023 study examining the performance of emergency medicine residents found that the Underrepresented in Medicine (URM) trainees, or trainees who were not white and/or Asian, were deemed to have demonstrated less medical knowledge and less effective patient care.
Similarly, a 2021 study published in Academic Medicine, the AAMC’s own journal, found that URM medical students routinely “experience delayed graduation and course failure” at a higher rate than their Asian and white peers. Of course, the study blames structural racism for this achievement gap.
Moreover, medical schools seem more concerned with DEI efforts than they do with recruiting the best and brightest. A Do No Harm review of the over 100 AAMC-accredited medical schools’ mission statements found the words “diverse” and “diversity” appeared 177 times, while “merit” appeared only once.
These facts are obviously not reflected in AAMC’s defense of DEI, as they undercut the organization’s narrative.
The AAMC claims it’s a “myth” that “diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in medical schools are about pushing a political agenda and are a detriment to the practice of medicine.”
The AAMC does not make an effort to refute the first claim that DEI in medical schools is a part of a political agenda. Presumably, that is because the subject is not really up for debate.
In fact, the AAMC itself defines “anti-racism,” a core tenet of DEI, as “the work of actively opposing racism by advocating for changes in political, economic, and social life.” Moreover, as of 2022, over 75% of medical schools actively lobby at the local, state, and federal level for policies related to DEI.
Instead, the AAMC cites data showing racial disparities in health outcomes as justification for the necessity of DEI programs and a more diverse pool of healthcare professionals.
However, the AAMC does not provide any evidence indicating that DEI initiatives are, or would be, effective at addressing these health disparities.
Previously, the AAMC has trotted out the line that “racism” and not race itself drives these health disparities and that race is a “social construct” that has no place in clinical algorithms.
This idea has gained popularity in recent years, but is utterly unscientific; as an example, a recent paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine argued that higher rates of preeclampsia in black women are due to racism, and not biological factors.
However, as Do No Harm’s Ian Kingsbury has shown, the far more likely culprits for these disparities are genetics and behavior, with roughly 55 percent of preeclampsia risk estimated to be genetic.
Moreover, the implication that minority patients can be better treated by minority physicians is similarly unsupported.
As Do No Harm has shown, the majority of the research on the effectiveness of racial concordance, or the treating of patients by a physician of the same race, demonstrates no positive effect on health outcomes.
The AAMC claims it’s a “myth” that “DEI is just code for discriminating in favor of Black and Hispanic/Latino people.”
In practice, DEI initiatives involve overt racism. Do No Harm has cataloged scores of racially discriminatory medical school programs, fellowships, and other initiatives that exclude white and/or Asian applicants to advance the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
To counter this obviously true “myth,” the AAMC notes the fact that AAMC enrollment data shows black and Hispanic students are still “underrepresented” at medical schools. By this, the AAMC means that the proportion of black and Hispanic medical students is not equivalent to their share of the U.S. population.
This is a non-sequitur; the current racial composition of medical schools has no bearing on whether or not discrimination in favor of black and Hispanic students is ongoing and widespread.
A better gauge is whether black and Hispanic students are being favored by medical school policies. Beyond the numerous public examples of racially discriminatory behavior by medical schools, we can simply look at which racial groups are favored in medical school admissions.
And according to the aforementioned 2013-2016 admissions data analyzed by the American Enterprise Institute, black and Hispanic students had a far easier time getting into medical school with the same test scores and grades as their white and Asian peers.
This is quite simply racial discrimination.
The AAMC claims it’s a “myth” that “funding of DEI programs would be better spent on scientific advancement or other aspects of medical education.”
Funding for DEI programs would be better directed toward almost anything else.
DEI isn’t simply a distraction from medical schools’ primary mission to educate their students about medicine, it is immoral and dangerous.
Take, for example, the American Heart Association’s decision to remove race from its cardiovascular disease risk calculator in the name of making the tool more “equitable.” A new paper warned the AHA’s changes could make millions of people ineligible for much-needed medication.
Or take a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association which attempted to blame systemic racism for excess mortality among the black population, without considering other genetic and societal factors.
The logical conclusion of these ideas is to spend money chasing the phantom of “systemic racism” while failing to address and understand the real culprits for these health outcomes. This naturally leads to worse health outcomes for the exact racial groups the DEI advocates are claiming to support.
Rather than grapple with this, the AAMC instead quotes a DEI advocate who claims the practice is grounded on “science.”
That “science” is mysteriously absent from the AAMC’s article.
This latest AAMC publication is yet another example of the organization’s unwavering commitment to DEI over medical ethics and intellectual rigor. Do No Harm has previously exposed the AAMC for spreading misinformation to advance its DEI agenda.
It seems old habits die hard.
The American College of Emergency Physicians Chooses DEI Activism Over Evidence-Based Medicine
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffDo 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
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Medical Journal Commentary Do No Harm StaffA 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
Uncategorized Michigan, United States DEI Western Michigan University Medical School Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffThe 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
Uncategorized Idaho, United States, West Virginia Gender Ideology Federal government Commentary Judicial Do No Harm StaffOn 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:
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
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Medical association Commentary Stanley Goldfarb, MDEarlier 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:
Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Travis Morrell:
Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Miriam Grossman:
Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Aida Cerundolo:
Do No Harm Patient Advocate Chloe Cole:
International Med Student Org Suspends Israeli Students Over Allegations of ‘Genocide’ Denial
Uncategorized Israel DEI international federation of medical students' associations Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe 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:
Medical Schools Walk Back Discriminatory Scholarships After Do No Harm Complaints
Uncategorized Pennsylvania, Texas, United States DEI Baylor College of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical School Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffTwo 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.
Do No Harm Files Federal Complaint Against Racially Discriminatory Clinic
Uncategorized Ohio DEI Cleveland Clinic Hospital System, Medical School Press Release Executive Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, VA; August 14, 2024 – Do No Harm, in partnership with the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), filed a federal civil rights complaint against the Ohio-based Cleveland Clinic for two specific examples of racial discrimination. The complaint is directed at two of the clinic’s programs: the Minority Stroke Program and the Minority Men’s Health Center.
The complaint stems from the fact that these programs are specialized for “preventing and treating [health conditions] in racial and ethnic minorities.” Offering racially segregated healthcare services is a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). According to Title VI, a recipient of federal funding, like the Cleveland Clinic, may not “provide services or benefits in a different manner from those provided to others” based on race. Similarly, the ACA prohibits racial discrimination by “any health program or activity, any part of which is receiving Federal financial assistance.”
“Race-based discrimination and segregation of patients degrades trust in the healthcare system and is illegal,” said Do No Harm Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb. “The laudable goals set forth by the Cleveland Clinic’s special programs to assist patients struggling with strokes, diabetes, mental health, and other health concerns can and should be achieved without racial bias.”
“The problem with Cleveland Clinic’s racial persona grata / persona non grata model is that it engages the dangerous practice of using race as a proxy for legitimate health risks,” said WILL Associate Counsel Cara Tolliver. “Whether a particular patient should be prioritized, promoted, pursued, and included for medical assistance and care does not change simply because a patient is the wrong color. Cleveland Clinic’s endeavor to create a dichotomy of care that assumes what individuals need based on their race is both inappropriate and illegal.”
Click here to read the full complaint.
Click here to read WILL’s press release.
Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. With 10,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries, DNH has achieved over 10,000 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.
American Society of Plastic Surgeons Acknowledges ‘Low Quality’ Evidence Backing Gender Surgeries for Minors
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffAdvocates for gender ideology have long argued that gender medical interventions for minors are grounded in well-established scientific evidence, citing support from American medical associations.
The American Society of Plastic Surgeons, however, appears to be charting a different course.
The ASPS recently 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.”
Additionally, the association “has not endorsed any organization’s practice recommendations for the treatment of adolescents with gender dysphoria.”
The ASPS’ statements stand in stark contrast to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s (WPATH) standards of care for gender medicine. WPATH’s guidelines recommend healthcare providers offer certain surgical procedures to adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria, provided they meet a few preliminary conditions.
Now, the ASPS says that it “is reviewing and prioritizing several initiatives that best support evidence-based gender surgical care to provide guidance to plastic surgeons.”
ASPS members are taking note, and they like what they see.
“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,” said Dr. Richard Bosshardt, senior fellow at Do No Harm.
“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,” Bosshardt added. “Plastic surgeons appreciate better than any other specialist the unique and daunting challenges of transexual 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.”
It’s time for other major medical associations to follow the ASPS’ lead. Even the most dogmatic proponents of gender medical interventions for children, such as the Endocrine Society, can return to evidence-based medicine and jettison gender ideology.
“Medical associations have long been bullied by gender activists into endorsing standards of care for minors that are based more on ideological zeal than well-established science,” said Michelle Havrilla, a certified nurse practitioner and director of programs for gender ideology at Do No Harm.
“The ASPS is taking an important step by committing to evidence-based surgical care. With any luck, the ASPS’ actions will inspire other organizations to recognize what numerous European countries already seem to know: that gender medical interventions for minors lack firm scientific backing.”
Cracks are beginning to show in the medical field’s blind support for gender ideology; ASPS’ statement comes as more and more physicians are recognizing that gender medical interventions for minors carry unknown long-term dangers and lack quality evidence.
While numerous American medical associations have adopted positions backing minors’ access to “gender-affirming care,” several European countries in recent years have significantly limited children’s access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, citing the treatments’ lack of evidence.
In the United Kingdom, the Cass Report, an exhaustive review of gender medicine for children published earlier this year, found that there is “remarkably weak evidence” to support the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to treat children with gender dysphoria.
In fact, WPATH buried the results of a systematic review conducted by Johns Hopkins University that found little evidence supporting “gender-affirming care” for minors.
“Something must be terribly wrong when more than 80 percent of children with gender dysphoria will outgrow their condition, but 100 percent of medical associations publicly support aggressive, permanent, and unproven transition treatments for minors,” said Scott Centorino, vice president of policy and programs at Do No Harm.
“But eventually, the truth wins. It’s gratifying to see more physicians – and now a major medical association – acknowledging reality.”
If you are a member of the ASPS, consider speaking out (publicly or privately to the leadership) to thank them for their point of view.
Do No Harm Lawsuit Ends Racial Discrimination in Fellowship Program
Uncategorized United States DEI Professional organization Press Release Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, VA; August 12, 2024 – Do No Harm secured a major victory after the American Association of University Women (AAUW) ended its discriminatory policy that illegally excluded fellowship applicants based on their race.
When choosing recipients for its “Selected Professions Fellowships,” AAUW will no longer consider applicants’ race or ethnicity, and will no longer require applicants to belong to “historically underrepresented” ethnic minority groups. AAUW changed its policy after Do No Harm sued AAUW on June 20, 2024 for violating federal civil rights law.
“Terrific news that the American Association of University Women responded to our Do No Harm lawsuit and no longer offers fellowships on the basis of race,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm. “Every patient deserves access to the best possible care and that begins with medical advancements such as this fellowship that should be awarded to students because of merit, not race.”
The case was dismissed after AAUW agreed to drop the racial criteria in the fellowship’s selection process.
Click here to learn more.
Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. With 10,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries, DNH has achieved over 10,000 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.
American Academy of Family Physicians Recruits ‘Experts’ to Teach Its Members DEI
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) seems intent on doubling down on its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) agenda, this time injecting identity politics into its educational materials.
The AAFP this week issued a call for subject matter experts to propose continuing medical education content as it develops its 2025 curriculum. But along with suggestions that the proposals be innovative and contribute to the advancement of the medical field, the AAFP had an additional stipulation – that they be “DEI-focused.”
The request mirrors one of the AAFP’s strategic educational priorities, which is to “develop and diversify family physician leadership.” The AAFP further specified that it is “especially interested” in proposals that discuss topics including “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)” and “Health equity.”
It should go without saying that medical education should not be “focused” on DEI, which involves racial discrimination to achieve its desired ideological objectives. Moreover, there is no evidence that initiatives aimed at promoting diversity among healthcare professionals or encouraging adherence to DEI have improved healthcare outcomes. In fact, research has shown that these initiatives have not reduced healthcare disparities. The goal of the AAFP and institutions like it should be to improve Americans’ health, not promote ineffective and divisive trainings.
But unfortunately, the infiltration of DEI into family medicine is nothing new, and the AAFP has long prioritized DEI in its educational materials.
In this instance, the AAFP makes clear that these educational proposals will help the organization further its DEI agenda.
“We will use the insights gained from this data to ensure our selection of faculty and our recruitment strategies are diverse, inclusive, and representative of our overall membership,” the AAFP says.
Do No Harm has previously exposed the AAFP’s obsession with DEI. In 2022, at several of the organization’s events, the AAFP held numerous DEI-focused sessions and panels, such as presentations on anti-racism. Anti-racism explicitly calls for racial discrimination to right past historical wrongs. In 2023, the AAFP’s vice president of medical education bemoaned the Supreme Court’s decision that found race-based university admissions unconstitutional, instead calling for alternative means of racial discrimination.
The AAFP’s pursuit of health equity and DEI can also present more serious dangers; for instance, the organization called to reexamine whether race should be used in diagnostic algorithms, arguing that considering race could worsen health disparities between racial groups.
This notion has drawn considerable criticism. Researchers recently warned that the American Heart Association’s decision to remove race from its cardiovascular disease risk calculator could contribute to making millions of people ineligible for necessary medication.
The AAFP is responsible for providing valuable resources to family medicine practitioners. It should take this responsibility seriously.
Rather than further indulge its DEI agenda, it should rid itself of this noxious and harmful ideology.
The AAMC Pushes Faulty Arguments in Ill-Founded Defense of DEI
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) published an article Wednesday attempting to debunk several so-called “myths” about diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts at medical schools.
But instead, the AAMC advanced claims that lacked evidence and resorted to ideological platitudes to defend its agenda.
Here’s what they said, and why they’re wrong:
The AAMC claims it’s a “myth” that “diversity efforts are resulting in unqualified students being accepted to medical school.”
Programs that prioritize race over merit are, by definition, prioritizing less qualified applicants over their more qualified peers. If a black or Hispanic student is chosen over a white or Asian student with better test scores, grades, and relevant experience, then less qualified students are being accepted into medical schools.
This practice is unquestionably occurring; we need only look at 2013-2016 admissions data analyzed by the American Enterprise Institute to see that black and Hispanic students were accepted at far higher rates than their white and Asian counterparts with similar grades and Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) scores.
To support its argument, the AAMC cites data showing MCAT scores and graduation rates have remained steady over the past five years.
But this is faulty reasoning; the average test scores of medical students in aggregate can remain steady while racial discrimination is still being practiced and less qualified applicants are being admitted to medical schools. Moreover, race-conscious admissions have been in place at numerous medical schools for far longer than five years, so the five-year range chosen by the AAMC is misleading.
Medical schools are also, by their own admission, deprioritizing test scores and grades in their admissions process. This is explicitly lowering standards to increase diversity.
For instance, numerous medical schools are outright ditching the MCAT, with the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine waiving MCAT requirements specifically for certain applicants from Historically Black Colleges and Universities. The MCAT itself also changed in 2015, spending more time on the “crucial role that sociocultural and behavioral determinants play in our health” and less on biology and physics.
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the second-largest teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School, deprioritized test scores for incoming medical residents in favor of “holistic reviews” that weighed candidates’ race. The school also required admissions personnel to undergo unconscious bias training.
At the University of California Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, admissions committee members bemoaned the school’s extraordinarily low admissions standards for minority students, stating that the school was becoming a “failed” institution, according to the Washington Free Beacon. In certain cohorts, “more than 50 percent of students failed standardized tests on emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics,” the Free Beacon reported. These tests typically have a 5 percent failure rate.
The bar for students deemed “underrepresented” is “as low as you could possibly imagine,” an admissions committee member told the Free Beacon. “It completely disregards grades and achievements.”
For yet another example, a 2023 study examining the performance of emergency medicine residents found that the Underrepresented in Medicine (URM) trainees, or trainees who were not white and/or Asian, were deemed to have demonstrated less medical knowledge and less effective patient care.
Similarly, a 2021 study published in Academic Medicine, the AAMC’s own journal, found that URM medical students routinely “experience delayed graduation and course failure” at a higher rate than their Asian and white peers. Of course, the study blames structural racism for this achievement gap.
Moreover, medical schools seem more concerned with DEI efforts than they do with recruiting the best and brightest. A Do No Harm review of the over 100 AAMC-accredited medical schools’ mission statements found the words “diverse” and “diversity” appeared 177 times, while “merit” appeared only once.
These facts are obviously not reflected in AAMC’s defense of DEI, as they undercut the organization’s narrative.
The AAMC claims it’s a “myth” that “diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in medical schools are about pushing a political agenda and are a detriment to the practice of medicine.”
The AAMC does not make an effort to refute the first claim that DEI in medical schools is a part of a political agenda. Presumably, that is because the subject is not really up for debate.
In fact, the AAMC itself defines “anti-racism,” a core tenet of DEI, as “the work of actively opposing racism by advocating for changes in political, economic, and social life.” Moreover, as of 2022, over 75% of medical schools actively lobby at the local, state, and federal level for policies related to DEI.
Instead, the AAMC cites data showing racial disparities in health outcomes as justification for the necessity of DEI programs and a more diverse pool of healthcare professionals.
However, the AAMC does not provide any evidence indicating that DEI initiatives are, or would be, effective at addressing these health disparities.
Previously, the AAMC has trotted out the line that “racism” and not race itself drives these health disparities and that race is a “social construct” that has no place in clinical algorithms.
This idea has gained popularity in recent years, but is utterly unscientific; as an example, a recent paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine argued that higher rates of preeclampsia in black women are due to racism, and not biological factors.
However, as Do No Harm’s Ian Kingsbury has shown, the far more likely culprits for these disparities are genetics and behavior, with roughly 55 percent of preeclampsia risk estimated to be genetic.
Moreover, the implication that minority patients can be better treated by minority physicians is similarly unsupported.
As Do No Harm has shown, the majority of the research on the effectiveness of racial concordance, or the treating of patients by a physician of the same race, demonstrates no positive effect on health outcomes.
The AAMC claims it’s a “myth” that “DEI is just code for discriminating in favor of Black and Hispanic/Latino people.”
In practice, DEI initiatives involve overt racism. Do No Harm has cataloged scores of racially discriminatory medical school programs, fellowships, and other initiatives that exclude white and/or Asian applicants to advance the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
To counter this obviously true “myth,” the AAMC notes the fact that AAMC enrollment data shows black and Hispanic students are still “underrepresented” at medical schools. By this, the AAMC means that the proportion of black and Hispanic medical students is not equivalent to their share of the U.S. population.
This is a non-sequitur; the current racial composition of medical schools has no bearing on whether or not discrimination in favor of black and Hispanic students is ongoing and widespread.
A better gauge is whether black and Hispanic students are being favored by medical school policies. Beyond the numerous public examples of racially discriminatory behavior by medical schools, we can simply look at which racial groups are favored in medical school admissions.
And according to the aforementioned 2013-2016 admissions data analyzed by the American Enterprise Institute, black and Hispanic students had a far easier time getting into medical school with the same test scores and grades as their white and Asian peers.
This is quite simply racial discrimination.
The AAMC claims it’s a “myth” that “funding of DEI programs would be better spent on scientific advancement or other aspects of medical education.”
Funding for DEI programs would be better directed toward almost anything else.
DEI isn’t simply a distraction from medical schools’ primary mission to educate their students about medicine, it is immoral and dangerous.
Take, for example, the American Heart Association’s decision to remove race from its cardiovascular disease risk calculator in the name of making the tool more “equitable.” A new paper warned the AHA’s changes could make millions of people ineligible for much-needed medication.
Or take a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association which attempted to blame systemic racism for excess mortality among the black population, without considering other genetic and societal factors.
The logical conclusion of these ideas is to spend money chasing the phantom of “systemic racism” while failing to address and understand the real culprits for these health outcomes. This naturally leads to worse health outcomes for the exact racial groups the DEI advocates are claiming to support.
Rather than grapple with this, the AAMC instead quotes a DEI advocate who claims the practice is grounded on “science.”
That “science” is mysteriously absent from the AAMC’s article.
This latest AAMC publication is yet another example of the organization’s unwavering commitment to DEI over medical ethics and intellectual rigor. Do No Harm has previously exposed the AAMC for spreading misinformation to advance its DEI agenda.
It seems old habits die hard.
Ohio State Med School Quietly Walks Back Discriminatory Program After Do No Harm Complaint
Uncategorized Ohio, United States DEI Ohio State University College of Medicine Federal government, Medical School Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffThe Ohio State University College of Medicine has quietly scrubbed language from a description of a research program that explicitly discriminated against certain racial groups. The university made this change sometime after Do No Harm filed a federal civil rights complaint with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights alleging that the program violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Ohio State’s Discovery Postbaccalaureate Research Education Program (PREP) program provides postbaccalaureate students with a 12-month paid experience in biomedical research, giving them valuable opportunities to make them more attractive Ph.D. candidates.
The program is part of a series of National Institutes for Health (NIH) initiatives aimed at building a “diverse pool” of students who will pursue biomedical doctoral degrees.
Unsurprisingly, to achieve this mission, the Ohio State program’s eligibility criteria stated that applicants are eligible if they are from the “following racial or ethnic groups: Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.”
If you were a white or Asian applicant, you were out of luck.
The program explicitly cited the NIH’s definition of “underrepresented groups in biomedical research” when describing its desired applicants, and stated that its eligibility criteria was required to receive NIH support. The NIH defines underrepresented groups as “Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, American Indians or Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders,” the same racial groups to whom Ohio State restricted the program’s eligibility.
Do No Harm Senior Fellow Mark J. Perry filed a federal civil rights complaint against Ohio State in October 2022, alleging that the eligibility criteria was unlawful racial discrimination in violation of Title VI
Then, at some point in late 2023, Ohio State changed its description of the Discovery PREP program and removed all racial eligibility criteria.
In its place, the description of the Discovery PREP program now reads that the program is open to “[a]pplicants that have encountered obstacles to gaining sufficient experience and the skills necessary for admission into a research-centric PhD graduate program in their chosen field of study.”
The Office for Civil Rights closed Do No Harm’s complaint on July 30 by referring it to the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), saying that “HHS is the federal agency that oversees this NIH program.”
However, at this point, the Title VI violation has been corrected by removing the race-based eligibility criteria for the Discovery PREP program. Therefore, the complaint has already been resolved in Do No Harm’s favor and no further action is required.
“Ohio State and NIH changed their eligibility requirements sometime last year to remove all race-based criteria while our complaint was being evaluated, either in response to legal challenges like ours or to avoid legal challenges in the future. Regardless of what exactly motivated that change, Do No Harm can take credit for bringing awareness to race-based discrimination in medicine through our more than 150 Title VI complaints,” said Perry. “The favorable outcome at Ohio State is one more victory for Do No Harm’s ongoing legal challenges to stop U.S. medical schools from illegally discriminating based on race, color, or national origin in violation of Title VI.”
Do No Harm applauds this resolution and we expect many more favorable outcomes in the future as the Office for Civil Rights continues to process and investigate our complaints.
Beyond being unlawful and immoral, practicing racial discrimination significantly compromises medical schools’ primary mission to properly educate graduate students free from divisive racial ideology. The best way to recruit, train, and develop talented physicians and scientists is to prioritize merit and not race.
U.S. universities and medical schools should follow suit and end their illegal practices of prioritizing race in their admissions process and scholarship awards. 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.
Social Workers Org Urges Members to Pledge Allegiance to Radical Identity Politics
Uncategorized United States Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffMedical social workers are important figures in the healthcare landscape, connecting patients with valuable medical resources, coordinating care, addressing financial barriers and helping them better manage their medical conditions.
Yet the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), which numbers over 120,000 members, seems to have another objective for social workers in mind: radical identity politics.
The NASW provides resources for healthcare social workers, establishing standards for clinical social work and offering information on federal regulations. But over the past few years, the NASW has become increasingly focused on promoting radical and divisive concepts around race, gender, and sexuality among its members.
For instance, NASW has repeatedly called on its members to promote “anti-racism” and advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and initiatives, even codifying this commitment in its ethics code.
“The NASW Code of Ethics calls on all members of the social work profession to practice through an anti-racist and anti-oppressive lens,” the organization said in a 2023 statement on its DEI agenda. “This includes supporting activities, such as DEI programs, that promote sensitivity to and knowledge about exclusion and the disproportionality of discrimination when intersecting with diverse identities.”
In practice, DEI programs and “anti-racism” invariably involve treating racial groups differently in order to achieve desired ideological outcomes. As anti-racism’s best-known advocate Ibram X. Kendi puts it, anti-racism involves explicit racial discrimination like affirmative action to right past historical wrongs. The NASW is essentially embedding racism into its ethical code.
It’s not hard to imagine the deleterious effects of such an outlook. Encouraging thousands of medical professionals to view the world through the lens of a regressive ideology is a recipe for prioritizing race in healthcare decisions.
We need only look at the federal government to see an example of this ideology’s real-world consequences. Just the other month, the Department of Health and Human Services unveiled a new rule aimed at improving “racial equity” in kidney transplants that preferences patients based on their income, a de facto proxy for race.
The NASW provides a few examples on how it envisions its ideology being applied in the healthcare field.
For instance, in a 2022 “anti-racism” statement, the NASW assumes the premise that white social workers are inherently privileged and there is an “empathy gap” between them and their minority clients. The organization then calls to address this so-called gap, though it’s not exactly clear how, or what evidence the NASW has for the existence of said gap.
Instead, there is a wealth of research demonstrating that being treated by a physician of the same race has no impact on one’s health outcome.
Additionally, the NASW is committed to ensuring “individuals in decision-making positions and key stakeholders across the association represent the diversity of Black, Latin A/O/X, Indigenous, Asian and Pacific Islander, and other People of Color and demonstrate best practices in diversity, equity and inclusion,” according to the organization’s anti-racism statement.
The NASW’s ethics code also urges its members to engage in activism to further these ideals.
“[S]ocial workers demonstrate knowledge that guides practice … in the provision of culturally informed services that empower marginalized individuals and groups,” the group’s ethics code states. “Social workers must take action against oppression, racism, discrimination, and inequities, and acknowledge personal privilege.”
But beyond that, the NASW recommends its members get further inculcated into the woke worldview.
State NASW chapters urge members to read books on anti-racism and texts advocating radical identity politics.
Delaware’s chapter, for example, recommends Kendi’s book on anti-racism, where he advocates for racial discrimination, as well as Robin DiAngelo’s book “White Fragility.” In her book, DiAngelo argues for viewing society through a racialized lens, and advances the view that white people are generally racist.
It’s disturbing that an organization representing thousands of healthcare professionals would advocate for such ideas and urge its members to follow suit.
These concepts are more than just trivial distractions from the NASW’s mission; they are dangerous, and lead to direct discrimination in healthcare.
The NASW should focus instead on helping social workers do their jobs to ensure the best possible health outcomes for society, and spend less time promoting discriminatory ideologies.
Chloe Cole’s Fight for Evidence-Based Medicine Deserves Respect
Uncategorized California, United States Gender Ideology Health system Commentary Aida Cerundolo, MDThe Los Angeles Times published a hit piece on detransitioner Chloe Cole last week, attempting to paint her as a political operative eager for fame and attention. Yet in her zeal to dismiss Cole’s efforts, writer Mackenzie Mays brushes over a key fact: that Cole was failed by her medical providers and misdiagnosed as transgender.
Cole’s story should trigger concern about how such an event could occur, and what steps can be taken to prevent other patients from enduring similar pain. Regardless of Cole’s politics, the pursuit of ethical medical treatment should be a nonpartisan cause, and Cole’s misdiagnosis should offend people of all ideological persuasions.
But Mays never seriously grapples with that fact, opting instead to whitewash legitimate questions about medical ethics and Cole’s own tragic experience as parts of a larger political agenda. She suggests that it is Cole’s own need for acceptance, rather than an effort to prevent other patients from suffering like she did, that propels her advocacy.
Mays glosses over how Cole, who now realizes she was never transgender, came to have her healthy breasts removed at age fifteen.
Mays dubs the emergence of detransitioners dealing with the aftermath of medical and surgical “gender-affirming” care a “movement,” rather than what they often really are – misdiagnosed, physically-altered, and sterile patients realizing they had other reasons for their emotional distress when they were diagnosed with gender incongruence.
Detransitioners are no more a “movement” than vegetative lobotomy patients or flipper-armed thalidomide babies. The existence of these patients should spark a closer examination of the system that allowed these mistakes to happen, rather than tossing them aside as political operatives.
As Dr. Hilary Cass and her team report in the Cass Review, the largest systematic review of gender research to date, there is no sure way to determine which children will maintain a lasting transgender identity. Studies show that if children with gender distress are allowed to progress through natural puberty, most will come to accept their biological gender, and many will identify as non-heterosexual.
Contrary to Mays’ claims that detransition is rare, there is no reliable way to measure the detransition rate, and it remains a black box. One study revealed that about three-quarters of detransitioners did not notify their gender clinician of their detransition, casting doubt on reports detransition is uncommon, while another study suggested the rate may be as high as thirty percent. While there are diagnosis codes to track and study gender transition, none exist for detransition, essentially nullifying this patient cohort and rendering them invisible in the electronic depository of codes used for research.
Mays owes Chloe Cole and patients like her an apology. Safe, evidence-based medicine is not a political agenda – it’s what all patients deserve, regardless of gender identity.
Do No Harm and Aristotle Foundation Release Updates to Groundbreaking Study: “Reassigned”
Uncategorized Canada, Europe, United States Gender Ideology Health system Press Release Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, VA; July 31, 2024 – Do No Harm and the Aristotle Foundation released updates to Do No Harm’s groundbreaking study, “Reassigned.”
This report, co-authored by Do No Harm’s Ian Kingsbury and Roy Eappen and the Aristotle Foundation’s J. Edward Les, compares the policies and guardrails around the legal and medical transition for minors in the United States, Canada, and Europe. The original study, published in January 2023, has been updated to include Canadian provinces, as well as the U.K. ban on puberty blockers brought about by the Cass Review.
According to the latest version of the study, the difference in approaches between North America and Europe leads to a concerning reality in which patients in North America are eligible for potentially irreversible or medically harmful interventions at a much younger age than those in Europe.
Ian Kingsbury, Do No Harm Research Director:
“This study shows that the European consensus, being grounded in science and common sense, continues to move away from medical interventions for minors. To protect our youngest and most vulnerable patients, the United States and Canada should follow their lead.”
Roy Eappen, Do No Harm Senior Fellow:
“The updated ‘Reassigned’ study continues to demonstrate that Canada and the United States should do away with harmful gender transitions for minors. We can and must end this modern-day conversion therapy.”
Click here to read the updated study. Click here to read the original version from 2023.
Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. With 10,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries, DNH has achieved over 7,800 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.
Do No Harm Poll: Black Americans Do Not Trust Politicized “Gender Neutral” Terms in Medicine
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Health system Press Release Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, VA; July 30, 2024 – This week, Do No Harm released the findings of a poll that revealed a vast majority of African American adults are greatly opposed to politicized medicine.
“Our polling proves that the ideologues pushing nonsensical identity politics in medicine are out of touch with the very people they claim to speak for. Black Americans are rejecting the push to redefine race and gender in medicine in furtherance of a progressive political agenda,” said Do No Harm Senior Fellow Benita Cotton-Orr. “The data proves that, like patients of all backgrounds, minority patients want doctors that are highly qualified and don’t indulge in identity politics. Prioritizing medical excellence for patients’ individual needs is the only way to restore the trust that has been eroded.”
Key findings:
Click here for more information about the survey.
Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. With over 10,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries, DNH has achieved over 7,800 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.
States Shouldn’t Let Accreditors Stop Them from Eliminating DEI at Med Schools
Uncategorized United States DEI accrediting organization, Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffSeveral states have recently taken action to scale back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs at higher education institutions like medical schools. Schools may argue these programs are necessary for accreditation, citing standards that require education on diversity and health disparities, but these arguments don’t hold water.
Many medical schools have referred to accreditation standards from the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), the main accrediting body for medical schools in the U.S. and Canada, as justification for their DEI offices, initiatives, and curricula. Do No Harm previously obtained documents showing the LCME encouraging the University of Utah to fix its “unsatisfactory diversity” among the student body and faculty – all in order to meet its accreditation standards.
Yet in response to questions from the House Education Committee regarding its DEI requirements, the LCME clarified that its standards do not mandate any specific diversity programs or desired racial outcomes.
In other words, state lawmakers are free to remove woke ideology from their medical schools without risking the schools’ accreditation.
Now, there is a new potential point of confusion: the LCME’s “Structural Competence, Cultural Competence, and Health Inequities” requirement, or Element 7.6. The requirement states that medical schools teach about the importance and impact of health disparities, and teach the skills to practice medicine in a “diverse society.”
It’s clear from reading the plain text of the standards that this requirement does not force medical schools to maintain DEI programs or embed DEI into their pedagogy.
Specifically, the requirement ensures that medical school curricula include the following items:
Nowhere in these standards are DEI programs even mentioned, let alone required.
But beyond that, the LCME does not prevent state lawmakers from taking steps to stop medical schools from teaching divisive, erroneous, and/or regressive concepts, such as the narrative that the healthcare system is fundamentally racist.
In fact, the LCME has made clear that many woke narratives so commonplace in medical education are completely unrelated to its accreditation standards.
When asked by the House Education Committee if it requires or encourages medical schools to “teach that the American health care system is systemically racist,” the LCME replied “no.” The LCME also noted that it does not itself view the American healthcare system as racist.
Element 7.6, by its plain text, does not force medical schools to teach any such thing, nor does it mandate DEI initiatives and programs.
Element 7.6 is also by far the most detailed item in the LCME’s accreditation standards pertaining to curriculum content. While the other items regarding the actual teaching of medicine are far more general, the organization seems more concerned with providing specific guidance regarding the teaching of health equity.
Still, the LCME’s requirements leave plenty of room for interpretation, and the organization has signaled it does not encourage the most divisive woke ideologies.
Do No Harm has had success finding ways to meet similar standards while still eschewing divisive and woke concepts. To meet Michigan’s requirement that health professionals complete an implicit bias training program, Do No Harm created a course that provides evidence-based information on implicit bias without resorting to woke narratives.
State lawmakers should not be deterred by concerns over accreditation, and take action to rid these noxious programs from medical schools once and for all.
Then, medical schools can more effectively perform their true mission: teaching medicine.