Medical 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.
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.
Virginia Chooses Science Over Politics When It Comes to Maternal Health
Uncategorized North Carolina, Virginia DEI State government Commentary Do No Harm StaffMaternal deaths are a tragedy that some bad actors try to exploit for political gain. Thankfully, Virginia is charting a different course. An executive order just issued by Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) offers promise for identifying and remedying real issues in maternal health without resorting to unscientific race-baiting.
Executive Order 32 reestablishes the Task Force on Maternal Health Data and Quality Measures. The task force is charged with collecting and monitoring maternal health data and issuing recommendations to identify and remedy deficits in the provision of care.
The executive order comes months after Gov. Youngkin vetoed Senate Bill 35, which would have required unscientific implicit bias training for medical professionals who work with expecting or recent mothers. The message is clear: Virginia won’t abide woke nonsense that only creates division and resentment, and instead favors an initiative that holds real promise for helping mothers and moms-to-be.
Unfortunately, when it comes to maternal health, race-baiting claptrap is often the norm over reason and science. In North Carolina, for example, the Maternal Mortality Review Committee determines whether “discrimination” is a factor in each maternal death, and specifically whether a “birthing person” was discriminated against due to “group, class, or category.” These are in fact impossible determinations, and simply hunches masquerading as science. More importantly, the process is a Trojan Horse for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and the North Carolina Committee unsurprisingly recommends a suite of DEI initiatives to remedy all the supposed discrimination occurring against Tar Heel mothers.
Each maternal death is a profound tragedy. Hopefully, through reason, depoliticized inquiry, and genuine passion for improving maternal health, Virginia can illuminate a path toward reform without devolving into tired and anti-intellectual orthodoxies.
DEI Invades the Bleeding Edge of the Medical Industry
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffAn event aimed at elevating a healthcare business model is promoting sponsorships and scholarships specifically intended to advance the radical left-wing ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
The September event, called the 2024 Hint Summit, is hosted by Hint Health, a software company operating in the direct primary care (DPC) space, and will feature clinicians and industry leaders. DPC is a growing business model in the healthcare industry in which patients pay regular fees directly to their physician or practice in exchange for a wide array of medical services.
Yet, while Hint describes the summit as DPC’s “premier innovation event of the year,” the summit seems to have full-throatedly embraced regressive identity politics.
For instance, the summit advertises “DEI Scholarships” on the event’s main page.
“Hint Summit has a limited number of scholarships available for residents and under-represented groups,” the scholarship listing reads.
While it’s unclear if the scholarships explicitly exclude certain applicants based on their race, the image advertising the scholarships includes two black physicians and one Asian physician.
Moreover, Hint is soliciting “Diversity, Equity & Inclusion” sponsors to support the event, according to a prospectus on Hint’s website. In exchange for publicity at the event, these sponsors will pay $1,500 for a member of an “underrepresented” group to attend the summit.
“In an effort to promote inclusivity, we are inviting members from underrepresented groups who would benefit from attending the 2024 Hint Summit and are looking for sponsors to contribute to cover their cost to attend,” the prospectus reads.
The summit also encourages members of “historically underrepresented” groups, such as “people of color” and LGBTQ+ individuals, to attend the event.
Regardless of their intentions, a medical company should not be rewarding people simply based on their skin color. Organizations in the medical field should strive to recruit and promote the most talented individuals possible, rather than awarding scholarships to groups they deem “underrepresented.”
This unfairly puts otherwise deserving individuals at a disadvantage due to their immutable characteristics.
Despite its professed embrace of divisive concepts like DEI, the event’s goal is to help make the DPC model more “mainstream.”
“[W]e will bring together DPC Clinicians of all shapes and sizes, industry leaders, stakeholders and ecosystem partners to create a path towards furthering the Direct Primary Care landscape and bringing DPC across the threshold of mainstream healthcare,” the event page states.
Jettisoning regressive ideas like DEI and abandoning practices such as offering preferential treatment to individuals based on their race would go a long way to achieving that end.
Unfortunately, the medical field’s embrace of DEI is well-documented.
Do No Harm has repeatedly exposed major medical associations’ attempts to advance the DEI agenda.
It seems even the more niche corners of the industry are no exception.
Do No Harm Calls on NIH to Fund Research Into Harms of Puberty Blockers, Shutter DEI Office
Uncategorized United States DEI, Gender Ideology Federal government Commentary Do No Harm StaffDo No Harm Director of Research Ian Kingsbury submitted comments on July 15, 2024 to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommending the agency prioritize funding research into the negative effects of medical transitions on children.
NIH’s Sexual & Gender Minority Research Office (SGMRO) had solicited comments for its “NIH-Wide Strategic Plan for Sexual and Gender Minority Health Research for Fiscal Years 2026–2030,” an initiative to inform how the agency invested in research on “sexual and gender minorities” such as lesbian, gay and transgender individuals. Kingsbury urged the NIH to fund research on “the effects of exogenous hormones or puberty blockers on the developing brain,” as well as to approach the field of pediatric gender medicine with general skepticism.
“Several European nations (e.g. United Kingdom, Finland, Sweden) that have conducted systematic evidence reviews have concluded that the risks of medical transition outweigh the benefits for youths and adolescents,” Kingsbury noted. “These countries have severely curbed access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.”
Kingsbury also recommended the agency fund research into social contagion, a theory of gender dysphoria which argues that the increase in individuals seeking to medically transition is partly due to the spread of gender ideology.
Kingsbury further urged the NIH to purge the politicized, left-wing elements of its agency and partner with organizations that are skeptical of pediatric gender medicine, including Do No Harm, Genspect, and the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine.
“The NIH Office of Equity, Diversion, and Inclusion should be shuttered,” Kingsbury wrote. “Time and again, we observe that DEI officials act as political commissars who enforce progressive orthodoxy and punish those who stray from it. Rigorous and impactful research should not be constrained by the possibility that it might hurt somebody’s feelings.”
There is no strong evidence to support medically transitioning children. The Cass Report, an exhaustive review of gender medicine for children in the United Kingdom 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.
However, the Biden administration has repeatedly advocated for the medical transition of children, and has opposed states’ attempts to limit minor access to puberty blockers and hormones.
In 2022, President Joe Biden issued an executive order directing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to expand access to so-called “gender-affirming care.”
“For transgender and nonbinary children and adolescents, early gender-affirming care is crucial to overall health and well-being as it allows the child or adolescent to focus on social transitions and can increase their confidence while navigating the healthcare system,” the HHS stated in 2022.
Moreover, Assistant Secretary of Health Rachel Levine pressured the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) to “remove recommended minimum ages for medical transition treatments” from its published guidelines for gender medicine, according to unsealed court documents.
Kingsbury and Do No Harm are calling on the NIH to maintain its focus on treating illness, and to approach pediatric gender medicine with well-warranted skepticism.
Microaggression mayhem: Oregon’s proposed microaggression rule could cost doctors their medical licenses
Uncategorized Oregon DEI State government Commentary Do No Harm StaffWhat does the term “unprofessional conduct” bring to mind? Fraud? Sexual harassment? Actions that put others in danger?
All of these could be considered misconduct, both within and outside of the medical community.
But the Oregon Medical Board is seeking to elevate one more category of behavior to the same level of severity as these offenses, warranting the same levels of mitigation and intervention: microaggressions.
According to a new rule proposed by the Oregon Medical Board, doctors that engage in “unfair treatment characterized by implicit and explicit bias, including microaggressions,” could have their medical license revoked.
Even worse, doctors who simply fail to report supposed “microaggressions” within ten business days could face the same penalty.
The Board’s proposed rule was formally filed back in April, with the public comment period closing the following month. Now, the Board could permanently adopt this rule as soon as July 11th.
If passed, Oregon’s new microaggression crackdown would not only stifle free speech, but also severely hamper physicians’ ability to be candid in the delivery of medical diagnoses or care. As Do No Harm Founder and Board Chair Dr. Stanley Goldfarb noted, “Physicians need to be able to speak frankly and honestly with their patients…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.”
Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to stop the Oregon Medical Board’s intent towards pursuing this radical proposal. In fact, according to the Washington Free Beacon, the proposed rule is drawn from a commitment contained in the 2023 “DEI Action Plan” from the Board. Interestingly, all links to the DEI Action Plan on the Board’s website are no longer functional. Nor is there any obvious posting of any public comments received relating to the proposed rule.
While the Board focuses its energies on the entirely manufactured crisis of microaggressions, it is apparently turning a blind eye towards the real cases of legitimate unprofessional medical conduct that are occurring in Oregon.
For example, a local Portland news station published an investigative documentary that examined cases where “doctors were allowed to continue practicing medicine even after being credibly accused of serious misconduct, including sexual abuse or gross negligence leading to the death of a patient.” According to the investigative piece, some of the most egregious violations of medical trust occurred after the Oregon Medical Board endorsed the continued licensure of problematic doctors.
Yet instead of treating the investigative report as an opportunity to reflect on these concerning practices, the Board sued the news station over the disclosure of public records.
So, according to the Oregon Medical Board, microaggressions are to be treated with the highest level of severity, while blatant medical malpractice is of such little concern that the records should be shielded from the public’s view with litigation, if necessary.
Unfortunately, this is the perverse line of logic that the woke takeover of modern medicine has facilitated: legitimate issues are pushed aside to make room for more rules and restrictions to appease the fringe pro-DEI crowd.
It is unknown what the true adverse impact of this rule will be, if passed. However, it is entirely possible that highly skilled medical providers will simply be unable to tolerate such an intrusion into their free speech and the doctor-patient relationship. As a result, it will be unsurprising if these doctors look to states that allow them to practice with the candor that their profession requires.
At the July 11th meeting, the Oregon Medical Board will be faced with a simple decision: either uphold the freedom that doctors need in order to practice effectively, or permit the entire medical establishment in Oregon to be completely overtaken by the wishes of woke radicals. The choice could not be clearer.
Medical licensing & regulation org takes its politics to North Carolina
Uncategorized North Carolina DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffDEI is not a foreign concept to the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB). The organization, which is responsible for many of the licensing and regulatory processes for medical professionals across the country, has repeatedly endorsed woke ideas under the guise of medical “advocacy”.
For example, in 2021, the FSMB issued a statement wholly affirming its allegiance to DEI as part of an effort to address “systemic racism and inequity”. The statement highlighted the formation of a Task Force on Health Equity and Medical Regulation and a symposium on Health Equity and Medical Regulation. And in 2023, the FSMB published a final report of its Workgroup on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Medical Regulation in Patient Care. The report called for, among other reforms, creating a DEI-based Continuing Medical Education, which would astonishingly require physicians to engage in implicit bias training and evaluations on their adherence to DEI as part of their continuing education requirements.
Put simply, the FSMB is as woke as it gets.
Perhaps it is of no surprise that the FMSB has pushed its commitment to DEI down to the state level. As part of an effort to investigate this, Do No Harm issued a series of public records requests to select states in response to a survey put out by the FSMB. The survey included nine questions solely dedicated to DEI—roughly one-fifth of the entire survey. These questions include:
A response received by Do No Harm from the North Carolina Medical Board indicated that they ranked DEI as a “10” on a scale of “0 to 10” in terms of importance. That’s a higher score than legitimate medical policies and issues, such as telemedicine, interstate medical licensure compact, and more. North Carolina’s responses also indicated it has published both internal and external statements related to DEI and places a high priority on DEI in the way it regulates medicine.
North Carolina’s enthusiastic responses to questions relating to DEI are echoed in its own Board’s actions, such as the creation of a special working group dedicated to “diversity and inclusion”.
North Carolina has been a critical battleground in the fight against the influence of DEI in medicine. For example, in 2023, the North Carolina Legislature passed a bill that protected the free speech of medical educators and prohibited implicit bias training. Although the bill was vetoed by Governor Roy Cooper, the veto was successfully overridden by the Legislature.
This legislation was critical, as North Carolina’s institutions of higher education have come under fire time and time again for embracing divisive concepts inspired by DEI. Now, based on the results of the FSMB survey, its state medical board has all-but-admitted that DEI plays a crucial role in the Board’s policies and procedures.
(Of course, this is all somewhat ironic, given that the North Carolina Medical Board’s members are both majority white and majority male—demonstrating a lack of willingness to embody the DEI positions that it claims to embrace.)
North Carolina is just one of many states that has undoubtedly signed on to the FSMB’s controversial policies. Unsurprisingly, the high degree of importance the state’s medical authorities place on DEI has resulted in numerous instances of questionable practices at its medical colleges and universities. Indeed, there is no evidence at all that DEI benefits any patients. The role of the state medical board is to guarantee the highest quality of healthcare for the community. The DEI agenda does nothing for that goal. The sooner other state medical boards demonstrate transparency about how they’re embracing DEI, the quicker physicians and other medical professionals can push back against them.