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.
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.
Red State Med School Grills Faculty on Their Commitment to DEI
Uncategorized South Carolina DEI Medical University of South Carolina Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) appears intent on continuing its long tradition of imposing divisive and radical practices on its faculty.
The university’s neuroscience department recently distributed a questionnaire gauging faculty’s opinions on structural racism in the medical field and within the department itself. The so-called “climate survey” first states that society takes for granted “white leadership, dominance, and privilege” that works to “preserve gaps between white Americans and Americans of color.”
What better way to bias a survey’s results than by leading the respondent right from the start?
Proceeding from this faulty premise, the survey asks respondents how well the neuroscience department has done advancing wokeness – such as the “understanding and mitigation of unconscious bias and promote diversity, equity and inclusion” and whether the department has sufficiently hired “underrepresented minorities at all levels.”
In other words, the department is evaluating its success in promoting practices that explicitly prioritize race over merit.
These activities belong nowhere near a medical school. There is no evidence that medical practitioners’ racism is creating these “gaps between white Americans and Americans of color,” and a wealth of evidence shows that patients’ health outcomes are no better when they are treated by physicians of the same race.
Yet the survey is ultimately a reflection of a broader trend within MUSC.
For instance, a MUSC flyer advising best practices for recruitment instructed faculty to acknowledge their “implicit bias” that may influence their hiring decisions. The flyer further urges faculty to take “an online Implicit Association Test (IAT)” to gauge their own unconscious prejudices.
Research has consistently shown IATs to be unreliable; a 2013 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that IATs were “poor predictors” of real-world bias and discrimination.
Yet that’s not all; MUSC, like many other medical schools, is asking prospective faculty to detail their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
Do No Harm obtained guidance for neuroscience department administrators on how to construct faculty job postings. The guidance stipulated that job postings should ask applicants to submit a statement on their “commitment to DEI.”
A candidate’s commitment to DEI is irrelevant when considering their suitability to teach medicine and should have no bearing on their eligibility.
But MUSC seems determined to prioritize adherence to woke ideology over aptitude.
South Carolina lawmakers launched an effort earlier this year to prevent universities from asking for DEI statements in faculty applications, but the bill stalled out in the legislature’s upper chamber.
MUSC is no stranger to woke medicine; in 2020, the school publicly announced its goal to “become the preeminent model for inclusion and equity, setting a national standard among academic health systems.”
It seems these documents are further evidence of how deeply committed the school is to radical identity politics.
Do No Harm previously obtained documents showing MUSC had spent $370,000 to hire a Chief Equity Officer, paid $45,000 for a series of woke speakers on campus, and hosted a day-long seminar that promoted racial discrimination.
Moreover, MUSC faced a federal investigation for offering discriminatory diversity fellowships, which ultimately led the school to alter the scholarships’ eligibility criteria.
Why is a medical university so obsessed with identity politics instead of focusing on educating its students about medicine?
MUSC is best served ridding itself of these practices and going back to teaching students how to be medical professionals. That is the best way to maximize the institution’s value to society.
Medical School Takes Down Portraits of ‘Senior Male White Leaders’ in Pledge to ‘Diversity’
Uncategorized Canada DEI dalhousie medical school Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffDalhousie Medical School in Nova Scotia, Canada, has taken down the portraits of its former deans for being too old and white.
The school reasoned that the deans were no longer representative of the school’s student body, which includes black and indigenous individuals, according to an announcement from the Dean of Medicine Dr. David Anderson obtained by Do No Harm. Moreover, the school claimed that “students, faculty, and staff” had felt unwelcome in the area in which the portraits were hung.
“While the portraits of previous deans and other historic figures found there represented our history, they also represent that, like many other institutions of our region, our Faculty has been dominated by senior male white leaders,” the announcement read. “This group does not represent our current student body and the diversity of communities our Faculty has a responsibility to serve.”
“After much thought and consultation, we have decided to change the decorum in our Tupper
Building foyer space,” Anderson continued. “As a first step we have taken down the portraits of our former deans and other medical school figures from the space.”
Dalhousie cited its “Strategic Plan” when explaining the reasoning behind its decision. That plan contains a commitment to the “theme” of “equity, diversity, inclusion & accessibility” and pledges to take steps to enroll more black and indigenous students as “equity-deserving groups.”
The plan also pledges to “ensure our spaces are welcoming and supportive for individuals of diverse backgrounds.”
The College of Medicine at Texas A&M University recently made a similar gesture when it removed “the predominantly white male photos of [the] graduating class prominently displayed on the entrance” to the school. The medical school claims it did this to eliminate “noninclusive” imagery.
It is not a slight to the current study body to celebrate the intellectual accomplishments of past deans. Their race has no bearing on their service as stewards of medical education.
Dalhousie should devote “much thought and deliberation” to teaching medicine, and not self-flagellation to signal their ideological commitments.
NIH-Backed Grant Programs Blatantly Discriminate by Applicants’ Race
Uncategorized United States DEI Federal government, Public university Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffIn an ideal world, the pursuit of knowledge would be an activity that unites all individuals, regardless of racial or ethnic background, as the benefit of scientific advancement is shared by humanity at large.
Unfortunately, many of the federal government’s efforts to advance the sciences are actively encouraging racial discrimination.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is running a grant program aimed at increasing diversity in the sciences by targeting individuals from “underrepresented” backgrounds. The institutions administering these grants explicitly restrict grant funding to applicants of certain races.
The Enhancing Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Educational Diversity (ESTEEMED) grant program is designed to help undergraduates from “diverse” backgrounds pursue careers in biomedicine. The program, which began in 2017, specified that the grantors should target “individuals from groups identified as underrepresented in the biomedical, clinical, behavioral and social sciences” such as racial minorities and disabled individuals.
The NIH currently lists 16 active ESTEEMED grant programs on its website; each program’s eligibility criteria contains varying degrees of racial preference.
For instance, Clemson University’s “Call Me Doctor ESTEEMED Scholars Program” stipulates that applicants are eligible if they are from the following ethnic backgrounds: “Hispanic or Latino, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native.”
These groups are defined by the NIH as being “underrepresented.”
Similarly, the University of Georgia states that ESTEEMED applicants “must” be from a “diverse background,” which includes an “underrepresented group.”
The University of Colorado at Denver also requires applicants be from an underrepresented group as defined by the NIH. Clarkson University and Washington State University have similar criteria.
There is no legitimate scientific reason for the NIH to encourage racial discrimination as a condition of receiving grant funding.
Prioritizing race over talent and competence invariably leads to worse scientific outcomes and is clearly unethical.
It is unconscionable that academic institutions are engaged in this blatant racism – and that they are hamstringing scientific progress to do so.
Nevertheless, the NIH conditions its funding on these racial preferences.
In fact, when determining whether to renew funding, the NIH reviews how effective grantors are at recruiting applicants from diverse backgrounds; in other words, how effective the grantor is at racial discrimination.
“For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period, and the success of the program in attracting individuals from diverse populations, including populations underrepresented in biomedical, behavioral and clinical research on a national basis,” the NIH states.
Do No Harm previously exposed how the NIH mandates applicants for certain grants include a document outlining how their research will advance diversity and inclusivity, such as through including researchers from “historically underrepresented” backgrounds.
These mandates encourage applicants to submit to useless and divisive diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) trainings.
The NIH should ensure that grantors do not use race or ethnicity as a criteria for determining applicants’ eligibility.
To do so is not only immoral but contrary to the agency’s larger mission to pursue the achievement of human knowledge.
Insurance Giant’s State-Sanctioned Training Indoctrinates Medical Providers into Woke Ideology
Uncategorized Maryland DEI Health insurance provider, Medical association, State government Commentary Do No Harm StaffA major insurance company is instructing healthcare providers to adopt radical ideology in order to combat so-called “implicit bias” and racism in the healthcare system.
In a course entitled “Understanding Implicit Bias,” CareFirst – Blue Cross Blue Shield’s Maryland affiliate – teaches medical providers that racial disparities in health outcomes are partly due to inherent racism in the healthcare system, and the implicit biases of healthcare providers. As evidence, CareFirst links to resources that cite the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which purports to measure individuals’ unconscious prejudices.
The course was approved as a training eligible for American Medical Association credits for continuing medical education. Moreover, according to a press release accompanying the training, it was approved by the Maryland Department of Health and the Maryland State Medical Society for licensing requirements, so that providers can use the course to apply for and renew their license in the state.
Yet the training’s entire foundation is built on shoddy science and false assumptions.
There is no evidence that physicians generally treat minority patients worse than white patients or that unconscious racism explains racial health disparities, and the tests used to evaluate implicit bias fail to meet widely-accepted standards of reliability and validity.
For instance, a 2013 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that IATs were “poor predictors” of real-world bias and discrimination.
“Twenty years of research produced very little evidence that the IAT test predicts any real-world behaviour,” University of Toronto Mississauga psychology professor Ulrich Schimmack, who spent years studying implicit bias, said in 2019. “On top of that, some of the articles that claim it does, on close inspection, fail to show that.”
Additionally, several systematic reviews have found that patients’ health outcomes are no better when they are treated by physicians of the same race. And as Do No Harm has previously reported, studies crediting racism for racial disparities in health outcomes often ignore key factors that complicate their conclusions.
In short, CareFirst’s premises are false and based on discredited theories that purport to explain racial health disparities.
Despite this, CareFirst deploys the usual panoply of woke jargon – “implicit bias,” “conscious bias,” “microaggression,” and “systemic discrimination” – to describe factors leading to negative health outcomes for minority patients.
CareFirst relies on these faulty assumptions to instruct providers to incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) principles into their organizational culture, and to assess their own implicit biases by taking tests.
In other words, CareFirst wants to indoctrinate healthcare providers into DEI ideology — and wants them to become vectors themselves.
It’s easy to see how attributing racial disparities to implicit racism can cause harm by obscuring the more likely culprits. But more critically, urging providers to adopt DEI ideology is effectively urging them to reject science and evidence-based medicine in favor of a radical social agenda.
That Maryland approved this training is further evidence that the medical industry and its governing bodies are at times more interested in advancing radical ideology than providing genuine medical instruction.
Maryland law requires providers to undergo implicit bias training in order to renew their licenses.
Do No Harm created its own continuing medical education course to fulfill Michigan’s similar implicit bias requirement. The course provides evidence-based information on implicit bias and critical race theory’s impact on medicine while eschewing the woke agenda typical of these trainings.
Maryland’s training is a snapshot into how various forces – governments, insurance companies and medical associations – collude to push a DEI-based agenda.
Other states should do everything possible to avoid emulating Maryland’s model.
Moreover, CareFirst should quickly take stock of its full-fledged endorsement of DEI initiatives. Ultimately, in the long run, these programs will come back to haunt the insurer.
“I can’t believe that my health insurance company is proud to peddle these divisive politics,” said the unhappy CareFirst customer who sent us the tip. “If you’re going to train your providers in anything, train them in the latest medical developments that will actually save lives. Or train your customer service agents to help people faster.”
“When I called recently to get a question answered about my benefits, I heard a recorded line warning about modified customer service hours starting at noon to allow for staff development to maintain an inclusive and equitable workplace,” the customer added. “I waited more than 30 minutes on hold. Ridiculous. Do your job.”
New Hampshire Takes Crucial First Step to Protect Children from Radical Gender Treatments
Uncategorized New Hampshire Gender Ideology State legislature Commentary Do No Harm StaffGov. Chris Sununu (R-NH) on Friday signed into law a bill that prohibits physicians from performing “genital gender reassignment” surgeries on minors in New Hampshire. The law is an important first step toward protecting children from unproven and dangerous medical interventions.
The legislation, HB 619, prohibits surgical procedures which seek to change a patient’s genitalia such as metoidioplasty, phalloplasty, or vaginoplasty for children under the age of 18. The law takes care not to prohibit genital surgeries that correct injuries or malformations, and does not mention chest surgeries such as mastectomies.
As the law notes, there is a lack of evidence demonstrating that genital gender reassignment surgery procedures are safe or effective in treating gender dysphoria, and there is very little research on the procedures’ long-term risks and concerns. These complications can include fistulas and chronic infection. Additionally, several European countries currently prohibit these procedures for minors.
Moreover, the law acknowledges that “adolescent genital gender reassignment surgery generally lacks both adequate information for informed consent and involves a high risk of coercion for parental consent.”
The legislation first passed the New Hampshire House of Representatives in January and the Senate in May. It was sponsored by several lawmakers including Reps. Terry Roy, Nikki McCarter, James Spillane, Kevin Verville, Jeanine Notter, Sheila Seidel, Alicia Nekas, and David Love.
In 2023, Do No Harm proposed the JUST FACTs Act as model legislation for state lawmakers to help them craft responses prohibiting children’s access to dangerous and unproven medical interventions.
Oregon Walks Back Plan to Strip Doctors of Their Licenses for ‘Microaggressions’
Uncategorized Oregon DEI Oregon Medical Board Medical Board Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe Oregon Medical Board appears to have walked back language in a proposed ethics rule that could have stripped doctors of their medical licenses for committing so-called “microaggressions.”
The board can currently revoke or suspend a physician’s medical license under Oregon law for “unprofessional conduct,” which includes behavior like fraud, willful endangerment of a patient and other clear violations of medical ethics. However, earlier this year, the Oregon Medical Board had proposed a rule that would expand the definition of “unprofessional conduct” to encompass behavior that included “microaggressions.”
The initial version of the rule stated that “discrimination through unfair treatment characterized by implicit and explicit bias, including microaggressions, or indirect or subtle behaviors that reflect negative attitudes or beliefs about a non-majority group” met the definition of unprofessional conduct.
The rule has its roots in the board’s 2023 “DEI Action Plan,” which called for “a new definition for unprofessional conduct that includes ‘discrimination in the practice of medicine/acupuncture,'” the Washington Free Beacon reported.
Yet in the updated version of the rule posted on the Oregon Medical Board’s website July 15, 2024, the “microaggressions” language is nowhere to be found. The agency is collecting comments on the rule up until August 26, 2024 and holding a hearing on the rule that day.
“Discrimination in the practice of medicine, podiatry, or acupuncture resulting in differences in the quality of healthcare delivered that is not due to access-related factors or clinical needs, references, and appropriateness of intervention,” the new language states.
The change is a major victory for free speech and for doctors’ ability to freely treat their patients. By forcing physicians to navigate these legal tripwires and worry about whether their candid speech may be a microaggression, the Oregon Medical Board was creating circumstances that actually may have endangered patients by denying them valuable information.
“Physicians need to be able to speak frankly and honestly with their patients,” Do No Harm founder and Board Chair Dr. Stanley Goldfarb told the Washington Free Beacon about the initial rule. “If they believe that they can be sanctioned because they deliver bad news or make a comment that the patient misinterprets, this will lead to a chilling effect on speech and ultimately lead to deterioration in the patient-physician relationship.”
The Oregon Medical Board should not resurrect this regressive and dangerous language, and it made a wise decision by striking it from the proposed rule.
Leaked Presentation Reveals How NIH Forces DEI Agenda on Medical Institutions
Uncategorized Ohio DEI Cleveland Clinic Medical School Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffThe Cleveland Clinic is instructing faculty members to police their “microaggressions” in response to grant funding requirements from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
In a presentation obtained by Do No Harm titled “Building a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive culture: Addressing Microaggressions,” the Cleveland Clinic laid out how faculty should respond to microaggressions, which it defines as “everyday actions” that harm “marginalized groups.” The course instructs faculty to document ongoing microaggressions, an example of which is “a woman clutch[ing] her purse when a black man enters the elevator,” and to report such behavior to their supervisors.
As its title might suggest, the course is part of the clinic’s larger effort to promote diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) within its organizational culture.
But more telling is how the course instructs prospective applicants for NIH grant funding to navigate the agency’s woke mandates.
The course specifically outlines how to respond to the NIH’s Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP) requirement that mandates applicants for certain grants include a document outlining how their research will advance diversity and inclusivity, e.g. through including researchers from “historically underrepresented” backgrounds.
The course recommends grant applicants “enhance training and PEDP sections” of their grant applications, while also providing sample text to use that states applicants will participate in a “Microaggression Awareness Training.”
In other words, the NIH, by conditioning its grants on applicants’ submission to DEI, is incentivizing research institutions to implement these trainings.
The Cleveland Clinic’s presentation sheds light on how the Biden administration’s federal funding requirements encourage universities to push radical woke ideology on their faculty.
For instance, the NIH recommends grant applicants include members of “underrepresented racial and ethnic groups” in their projects, as well as engage with “minority-serving” institutions, to meet the PEDP requirement.
This sort of racial favoritism obviously unfairly disadvantages academics based on immutable characteristics, but also harms the field of science more broadly. Grant applicants should be considered for the merits of their research and ideas, not for their commitment to the Biden administration’s preferred ideology.
If the NIH wishes to mandate these requirements, it should provide evidence demonstrating why researchers who are black or of another minority group can perform their job better than other ethnic groups.
While the Cleveland Clinic’s course is perhaps a more anodyne example of this dynamic, it demonstrates how the NIH’s mandates encourage institutions to devote their resources to anti-scientific endeavors.
The Cleveland Clinic’s course is listed under a faculty development program that is administered through the clinic’s Lerner College of Medicine in conjunction with Case Western Reserve University, and is open to 900 faculty members; the aforementioned “Microaggression Awareness Training” is put on by the organization’s Lerner Research Institute.
The presentation also refers to several NIH grants and programs, including the BRAIN Initiative, that explicitly advance the DEI agenda.
“The BRAIN Initiative is firmly committed to fostering diversity, inclusivity, and accessibility in the research community,” the NIH’s description of the initiative reads. “BRAIN investigators should strive to compose teams richly diverse in perspectives, backgrounds, and academic disciplines, and provide full opportunity and participation to individuals and groups underrepresented in neuroscience.”
To cultivate quality research and advance the fields of science and medicine as best as possible, the NIH should ditch these grant requirements.
Setting up bureaucratic hoops that require grant applicants to pay homage to the DEI agenda may serve the Biden administration’s political purposes, but does nothing to advance humanity’s collective knowledge.
Do No Harm Calls on EEOC to Investigate Racially Discriminatory Internship Program
Uncategorized United States DEI Federal government, Medical association Press Release Executive Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, VA; July 18, 2024 – Do No Harm has requested that the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigate an internship program offered by the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM) for racial discrimination.
ARM, a medical organization that advocates for engineered cell therapies and genetic medicines, offered the GROW Internship Program, designed to provide undergraduate and graduate students with early-career paid opportunities in the regenerative medicine sector. However, the lucrative 12-week internship is open to only those students who “identify as Black/African American.”
“To flagrantly discriminate against applicants because of their race is reprehensible and unlawful — the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM) should be investigated and the program shut down,” said Do No Harm Board Chair Dr. Stanley Goldfarb. “The opportunity to engage in the sciences should be open to the best and the brightest and never be based on the color of one’s skin. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission needs to open an investigation into ARM immediately.”
Do No Harm has called for the EEOC to open an investigation into ARM as the parameters they have set in place violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race.”
Click here to read the full complaint:
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 more than 8,900 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and in 14 countries, DNH has achieved more than 7,800 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.