Physicians for a Healthy California (PHC) – the philanthropic arm of the California Medical Association (CMA) – recently called upon the state’s doctors to make “health equity,” a Critical Race Theory (CRT)-inspired doctrine, a priority in their practices.
PHC held its Health Equity Leadership Summit on September 14-15, 2023, in San Jose.
The concept of “health equity” claims that “systemic racism” and “oppression” create substantial barriers for minority individuals who encounter the healthcare system. According to this ideology, achieving “race concordance” between minority doctors and patients means more people from minority racial and ethnic groups would obtain better health care.
This claim has been translated into diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies and practices to admit more minority medical school applicants to the nation’s medical schools – even if merit and abilities take a back seat to race and ethnicity.
A “welcome” letter to summit attendees obtained by Do No Harm (DNH) announced PHC’s interpretation of health equity – one that seems to prefer politicized virtue-signaling to sound medical and scientific knowledge:
The pursuit of equity is one that requires humility, empathy, persistence and teamwork. As part of PHC’s Strategic Planning Initiative, which began in earnest last year, the PHC Board has been reflecting on our work in the space of advancing health equity and our role in the broader health equity ecosystem. We seek to expand beyond our historic work with the Network of Ethnic Physician Organizations (NEPO), and its cornerstone Annual Summit, while we consider innovative ways to discuss and advance equity in our health care system.
According to the organization, the summit event sought to train “physicians, executives, advocates, and allies” in how to promote the issue of health equity in California by caring for “underserved communities throughout the state.”
Workshops at the summit provided encouragement to attendees to embrace the health equity philosophy in their practices. Session titles included:
- Health Equity Leadership in Practice: A Discussion of Chief Health Equity Officers
- The Diversity Tax, Moral Injury and Career Satisfaction: How Medicine Can Attract and Retain Talent
- Showing Up as Your Authentic Self
- Incorporating Equity Practices throughout Your Career
- Developing and Advocating for Equitable Health Policy
Marilyn Singleton, M.D., a retired anesthesiologist and DNH senior fellow, attended the two-day summit.
“My overall impression of the conference was that the speakers were grim in their outlook on life,” Singleton, an accomplished black physician, told DNH during an interview. Dr. Singleton noted that some of the presenters at the summit were also competent minority women who nevertheless still feel the need to communicate “a sense of hopelessness and perpetual racism.”
“I find it curious that people who have made it, don’t speak from a place of ‘you can do it too,’” she explained, adding:
Yes, there are problems in health care. Yes, there are problems in America. But the fact that we’ve gotten where we are– I mean one of the panelists was an orthopedic surgeon, my goodness! There’s not that many women in ortho in the first place, and, now, she’s a black woman! Like how did you do it? And what does it take? And you must have had gumption and so many positive characteristics! But that’s not what they’re saying at all. It’s negative, negative. I think the same woman said there’s a diversity tax … to do more volunteer work and mentoring because of your gender and color.
Marilyn Singleton, M.D., Do No Harm senior fellow
“You should be proud that somebody’s asking you how you made it and not looking at everything from such a negative point of view,” Singleton responds to such complaints. She observes that embracing a positive perspective “doesn’t deny that there’s issues, but we’re looking for solutions, not a way to just drill down on problems.”
Singleton added another theme of the summit was the notion that “patients have no agency,” and no responsibility to take charge of their medical care.
“Everything is done to them” was the narrative of the presenters, one that, she said, amounts to “a racist view in itself.”
Groupthink pervaded the summit, Singleton continued, noting that questions for the presenters had to be submitted via an app that presumably sent them to someone who vetted them. She said she attempted to submit a question reflecting the lack of positive views of the accomplishments of some minority physicians, but it wasn’t selected for consideration.
Singleton also observed the irrationality of the agenda that insists such CRT-inspired “equity” programs will change decades of minority social circumstances.
“All this stuff to me is missing the whole problem,” she said, elaborating:
You need to go back to when these kids are in kindergarten. Don’t sit here and try to make some sort of program when somebody’s graduated from college already. Education-wise, it’s already too late. Unless you start way back when you can get the kids on an even keel and out here in California, my goodness, what is the new stat? Only 34% of kids are at grade level in English and maybe 40-something in math. So that’s what you have to change. And to have this over-focus on finding black residents or finding black people for medical school. Maybe they’re putting the cart before the horse in that particular arena that we’ve got to get back to basics, but nobody wants to do that because you’d actually have to sit down and quit sort of flapping your gums and do something, and pick up some policies that might be helpful, like school choice and all these things that have been fought for years. So, until we change all that, I don’t think anything’s going to change by the time you get up to medical school and residency.
A summit session panel, for example, featured Manisha Sharma, M.D., senior medical director at Blue Shield of California, referring to doctors who work with patients to encourage them to change their behaviors in order to improve their health as physicians who are “trained to blame and shame.”
“You’re the problem, you don’t eat right, that’s why you’re obese,” Sharma characterized an attempt to teach a patient how to take responsibility for her health.
“The entire time there was absolutely no focus on personal agency,” Diana Blum, M.D., a California neurologist who also attended the CMA/PHC health equity summit, told DNH:
There’s no sense that physicians are supposed to help empower patients to take ownership of their health. There was none of that. And what I found fascinating is here you have these big healthcare organizations that are supposed to really care for you from cradle to death, right? So, you should care about empowering patients to make healthy choices. But it was all about blaming the system. It’s not your fault. It’s the system that’s scapegoating you.
Diana Blum, M.D., California neurologist
Sharma, who identified herself as a “physician-activist” who views everything through the lens of “equity,” also told physician attendees they should all ensure their patients register to vote.
“That means everybody who comes through our doors, every person that you see in the gas station, everybody that you have on the street that you’re taking care of” should be registered to vote, she said.
LGBTQ-activist speakers reportedly schooled physicians attending the health equity summit on pronoun usage and provided a “resource” containing an LGBTQ glossary of terms.
“It was really bizarre,” Blum said. “How is it that we’re being lectured by folks on something that is not even scientific? What I read was anti-science, and they’re lecturing to physicians? I didn’t feel like these people were even educated on what they were saying – they couldn’t answer any of the questions about the pronouns that were asked of them.”
“Why are we wasting our time learning this and how is it going to actually improve patient care?” Blum asked. “None of that made sense to me.”
Both physicians walked away from the CMA/PHC health equity summit experiencing a sense of “lost opportunity” that doctors’ time could have been spent strategizing for real solutions for patient health problems, instead of blaming “the system” and allowing a radical political ideology to snatch power away from individual patients.
“I just felt like it was a lost opportunity, to be honest, because there are major issues that I face every day in my practice,” said Blum, elaborating:
For example, not being able to get the medication my patients need, because of, in my opinion, all the conflicts of interest. Given the stakeholders involved, this was an opportunity to actually discuss how do we make care more affordable, how do we actually increase access and not scapegoat so-called “white supremacy” culture, but actually improve the quality of the care that we’re getting.
“That’s what frustrated me,” she said. “Doctors don’t have much time. So, we’re taking time out of our busy schedule and making an effort to learn and to improve our practice. This was just a total waste on all fronts.”
While Singleton acknowledged some physicians may not be aware of what some minority or LGBTQ patients experience, her overall view of the “grimness” of the presenters, and the extent to which they blamed “the system,” gave her the sense “they were more wanting to create drones than educating people about things they may not know something about – like an army of social justice drones.”
“But there’s a difference between getting informed versus getting indoctrinated,” she said.
Despite the great effort by woke medical schools and associations to create a need for “racial concordance” between doctors and patients, DNH has already shown there is no evidence to support patients benefit from it with improved healthcare outcomes. As noted in the December 2023 report, overwhelming evidence suggests “it is irresponsible for medical organizations and political actors to push, in practice or policy, for racial concordance in medicine.”
The “attendant radical restructuring of healthcare along racial lines,” the authors added, “amounts to the return of segregation of medicine, sowing seeds of distrust between physicians and patients of different races.”
“The idea of separating the races should be relegated to the ash heap of history,” the authors concluded, “not revived by the false and dangerous claim that they are needed to improve health outcomes.”
Hospice and Palliative Care Credentialing Center Prioritizes DEI and Belonging over Merit and Competency
Uncategorized United States DEI Hospice, Nursing organization Commentary Do No Harm StaffHospice and palliative nurses care for some of the most complex patients and their families during a time when they are at their most vulnerable. Because of the multifaceted nature of their medical conditions, these patients depend on the clinical knowledge and skills of their nurses. But “the premier national credentialing organization” that certifies these nurses aims to prioritize identity politics over merit with a new strategy.
The Hospice and Palliative Care Credentialing Center (HPCC), which offers specialty certification exams for advanced practice nurses, registered nurses, pediatric hospice and palliative nurses, licensed practical/vocational nurses, and nursing assistants, prides itself on “advancing expert care in serious illness through state-of-the art certification procedures. HPCC recently announced its “Multiyear Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) Strategic Initiatives,” which aims to enshrine DEIB within its organization by “identifying internal and external barriers to achieving certification and providing opportunities to alleviate disparities and remove systematic biases.”
Those initiatives included the formation of a DEIB task force in 2023, made up of individuals “passionate about a culture and processes prioritizing DEIB.” In a recent letter to certification holders, HPCC board president Larry Fabrey, PhD wrote, “The [DEIB] task force is making recommendations to the board that will impact the appropriateness of all aspects of HPCC certification, from initial contact with prospective applicants through recertification.”
The inspiration for this initiative came from a 2022 article in Nursing Outlook, which hypothesizes standardized testing historically impeded education and career attainment for members of underrepresented minority groups. They specifically looked at the National Council Licensure Exam (NCLEX) – an exam all new graduates in the United States must take to determine if they are deemed safe to practice as a nursing professional. The article indicates nursing organizations have not published data needed to “evaluate/refine the NCLEX-RN from a DEI perspective.” “Preliminary nursing studies and data from other professions indicated disparities in testing outcomes,” the authors lament. Noticeably missing is a concern for a merit-based licensure process.
In response, HPCC launched a performance analysis of its certification exams with a review of disparities in pass rates based on race, ethnicity, and gender over a 3-year period. To date, the full report of these findings is not available. However, HPCC asserts their initial findings indicate a racial, gender, and ethnic gap in exam pass rates, with a commitment to reduce pass rate disparities among these groups.
The HPCC outlined other strategies in their notice to certificate holders and members, including:
The hospice and palliative nursing certifications are some of the most challenging and rigorous credentialing exams in the profession. They require knowledge of multiple disease states, extensive pathophysiology, and caring for a patient at the end of life. It has traditionally been a prestigious, merit-based certification that palliative and hospice nurses are proud to display. The initiatives proposed by HPCC beg the question: How will they ensure excellence remains the top priority in the certification process?
This is a disheartening trend among nursing organizations that prioritizes DEI over merit, activism over healing, and appeasement over fidelity to the profession. For current HPN certification holders, it is insulting to realize that the work done to reach this accomplishment is minimized by ideologically motivated initiatives that have no credible evidence to support them. Even worse, it is heartbreaking for patients and families, who need the best, most qualified nurses at the most vulnerable times of their lives. Nurses – who are repeatedly ranked as members of the most trusted profession in the country – must act to return their professional organizations to its main purpose: Providing the best possible care to all patients.
APA Journal Denounces Parents Who Don’t Gush About BLM to Their Children
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association, Medical Journal Commentary Do No Harm StaffBlack Lives Matter leaders have absconded with millions in donations while the organization languishes in debt. Meanwhile, the organization regularly traffics in hateful and radical ideology which includes a demand to defund the police, opposition to the nuclear family, and support for the perpetrators of Hamas’ October 7th attack against Israel.
Apparently, none of it matters to the American Psychological Association. In a recent “study” that appears in Developmental Psychology—a journal published by the APA—researchers explore differences in whether and how black parents and white parents discuss BLM with their children. The findings are not especially interesting, but the framing of their inquiry is alarming. “The BLM movement is explicitly about racial injustice,” the authors claim. Parents who engage in “delegitimatizing narratives” about BLM are “actively upholding racial injustice through harmful racial ideologies that perpetuate racism.”
Behind the comically tedious repetition of the word racism is a thinly veiled proposition: That BLM is a righteous organization, and that public support for it should be treated as a normatively desirable goal among health professionals.
There is no indication that talking about BLM would facilitate improved mental or physical health. There are however indications that BLM objectives endanger both. BLM-inspired protests in 2020 resulted in 19 deaths and billions in property damage, while the “defund the police” movement ushered in a historic spike in violent crime.
Nevertheless, the APA offers their staunch support. In 2016, the APA website offered glowing coverage of the “hundreds of students and psychologists” who marched in solidarity with BLM while at the APA annual convention. Another article published by the APA that year cribs fictional narratives about the U.S. justice system promoted by BLM to probe how “psychological research findings offer ways to foster justice.” In 2020, APA President Sandra Shullman called for “systemic change” in response to what she labeled a “racism pandemic” in the United States.
The corruption of medicine as a vehicle for woke political activism is a pandemic that should truly concern the APA. Instead, they’re fueling it.
Do You Care About Your Doctor’s Race? The Joint Commission Does
Uncategorized United States DEI Accreditiing organization Commentary Do No Harm StaffHospitals and healthcare organizations must provide race and ethnicity information about their staff and leaders if they hope to secure a new Health Care Equity Certification offered by The Joint Commission (TJC), even though there’s no evidence that doctors, nurses and other providers will treat patients differently according to these metrics.
In its explanation to healthcare providers about data collection for this new, advanced certification, TJC unbelievably acknowledges outright that racial concordance factors into it:
“It is essential for an organization to collect data and conduct analyses to understand the specific healthcare disparities that may exist at the organization and within the community it serves,” TJC states. “The organization should collect data to understand the sociodemographic characteristics and health-related social needs of the individuals in its community. In addition, data from the organization’s staff and leaders should be collected to identify opportunities to increase diversity and racial, ethnic, and language concordance.”
But do patients and their families truly care about the race or ethnicity of medical providers and staff who attend to them, or do they simply want the best clinical, ambulatory, and other types of care possible without the intrusion of political correctness and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) ideology? Requiring this information adds to the burden of staff members at organizations seeking certification or accreditation who spend time and resources collecting data and readying their departments to satisfy TJC’s numerous requirements — especially with its new emphasis on “healthcare equity.”
We cautioned recently that the DEI healthcare equity creep was deepening with TJC’s new National Patient Safety Goal #16, introduced in July 2023, which posits that better patient “safety” will result from identifying patients by race and ethnicity. TJC considers healthcare equity to be “a quality-of-care problem,” and asserts that NPSG 16 will help to “increase the focus on improving healthcare equity versus reducing healthcare disparities.”
Those who buy into the concept of racial concordance believe, for example, that black doctors will do a better job of taking care of black patients because white doctors supposedly hold implicit biases against them. Yet no one racial or ethnic group can claim bragging rights to biases and perceived instances of discrimination, whether on the giving or receiving end.
Moreover, healthcare organizations face the same inherent risks as other institutions if they hire to satisfy demographics and not on merit. It certainly matters to patients that their caregivers — especially doctors and nurses — are among the proverbial “best and brightest,” regardless of skin color.
On its website, TJC touts its Health Care Equity Certification as one that “guides forward movement in imbedding healthcare equity in all aspects of care, treatment, and service delivery.” As TJC explains in a webinar, the standards for compliance include asking the staff and leaders of healthcare organizations to self-report race and ethnicity, as well as languages they speak, during a TJC review for HCE certification. Organizations also must report “any incidents or perceptions of discrimination and bias that are experienced by staff or leaders,” just as TJC requires on patients.
Beyond the usual items that a TJC reviewer wants, such as organizational charts, HCE certification requires additional information that is focused on race and health equity:
The review process for HCE certification begins with a 45-minute Orientation to Health Care Equity Initiatives, involving the organization’s healthcare equity leader — yes, TJC requests they assign one — as well as its certification contact and other team members. The orientation is all about goals to “improve healthcare equity,” including a strategic plan and resource allocation.
Patient population, community demographics, collaboration with stakeholders — these are all topics of discussion, along with assessing health-related social needs (HRSNs). The final part of HCE orientation examines an organization’s support for DEI among its staff and leaders — collecting their data, discussing recruitment and retention policies, and reporting any incidents or perceptions of bias/discrimination.
The Joint Commission intends to compare the data on race, ethnicity, and languages of healthcare staff to that of their local communities — but making such comparisons does not address the need for safe, effective, quality care for patients. The issue is not the skin color of the staff; it is the quality of care. There is no good evidence that the staff racial makeup has anything to do with the quality of care or patient safety. Hiring practices that focus on merit and qualifications are the only effective means of addressing patient safety goals or quality of care.
S2E4: Dr. Kris Kaliebe and the Plea for Scholarly Dialogue Concerning So-called “Gender-affirming Care.”
Uncategorized Gender Ideology PodcastDr. Kris Kaliebe, a board-certified General, Forensic, and Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist and professor in the Psychiatry Department at the University of South Florida, joins the Do No Harm Podcast to discuss the plea for scholarly dialogue concerning so-called “gender affirming care” for youth. He has been outspoken on both gender ideology and the impact of DEI in his field.
Instead of peer-reviewed research and scholarly discussion around so-called “gender affirming care” for youth, there has been little–if any–-open discussion, let alone debate. Instead, the leadership of medical organizations has become influenced by political activists insistent on presenting a single dogma: That gender-affirming care for youth is evidence-based and life-saving. But we know both to be untrue.
Listen in via YouTube, Spotify, or Amazon Music.
DEI Sentiments Dominate In U.S. Hospitals
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffA recent report published by the American Hospital Association (AHA)’s Institute for Diversity and Health Equity (IFDHE) highlights that DEI attitudes are widespread in American hospitals.
The report includes the findings of a June 2022 survey which was administered to over 6,000 hospitals with more than 1,300 responses. According to the survey results:
Many of these hospitals have acted on their pro-DEI attitudes by signing a so-called “equity pledge” or “anti-racist” statement, such as the AHA’s #123forEquity Pledge. This pledge asks signatories to “increase the collection, stratification and use of race, ethnicity, language preference and other sociodemographic data to improve quality and safety,” among other commitments.
The AHA pledge has been signed by more than 1,700 hospitals, despite a concerning lack of evidence that these commitments will produce improvements in health outcomes for any minority community. The states with the highest concentration of hospitals signing onto the pledge are:
West Virginia is the only state with no hospitals reported as joining the AHA’s pledge.
But these actions don’t end with simply signing pledges. According to the report, DEI is increasingly prevalent in both budgeting and medical decisions at U.S. hospitals. Not only do a majority of hospitals report a budgeted department dedicated to advancing DEI goals, but nearly one-third of hospitals indicate these departments have annual budgets in excess of $125,000.
The report notes that, while some hospitals may not yet have budgets dedicated to advancing DEI, in the future “it will be important to track how hospitals are allocating resources towards DEI and advancing health equity.” This is a sure-sign that the AHA will be pushing hospitals to ramp up their DEI-related spending moving forward.
Nearly 85 percent of hospitals also indicate their use of “race, ethnicity and language data;
sexual orientation and gender identity; and social needs data” to inform clinical and operational functions. Put another way, unspecified and unclear “data” on concepts related to race, gender, and more are influencing hospital functions at these medical institutions. Since this statement is used by the AHA to gauge a hospital’s commitment to “health equity”, it can reasonably be assumed that this variety of DEI is driving medical decisions under the guise of data-informed policies.
The AHA’s advocacy for DEI in medicine is of no surprise—nor is the organization’s efforts to track hospitals’ verbal commitments, financial obligations, and medical decisions that relate to diversity, equity, inclusion, gender identity, and “anti-racism”. In fact, as Do No Harm has previously uncovered, America’s hospitals are increasingly fed by a talent pool of medical universities that seemingly prioritize being “woke” above all else. From California to Florida to Tennessee and more, these colleges and universities have not only implemented DEI and woke curriculum and trainings, but have also begun screening applicants before they even set foot on campus.
As a result, America’s institutions of higher education have greatly influenced its institutions of medicine to incorporate these non-medical factors into operational and financial decisions. These sentiments are no doubt reinforced by the AHA which has both jumped on the woke bandwagon and attempted to steer it further into identity politics and divisive concepts.
As the AHA and hospitals across the country continue to dive into the muddy waters of radical ideologies and political activism, patients will bear the consequences. Prospective doctors and nurses who are interested in delivering quality medical care will be crowded out by providers calling for more and bigger woke medical bureaucracies.
The silver lining? In a dozen states, fewer than ten percent of hospitals have signed onto the AHA’s equity pledge. These hospitals should continue to stand strong against the AHA and those pushing extreme ideologies, and instead focus their efforts on ensuring their patients receive the best medical care possible. The future of high-quality medicine is depending on it.
Dr. Sally Satel Comments on Excellence over Identity in Medicine
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical Journal Commentary Do No Harm StaffDr. Sally Satel, American Enterprise Institute senior fellow and lecturer at the Yale University School of Medicine, penned a February 6 guest post for the Unsafe Science Substack that urged a refocus on what academic excellence in medical education means.
Citing a recent Perspective feature article in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Centering Women of Color to Promote Excellence in Academic Medicine,” Dr. Satel challenged the injustices in NIH funding and career advancement the authors allege.
“I am not persuaded that “centering” women of color – or any group for that matter – is a path to academic distinction,” Satel wrote. “Increasing diversity is not necessarily in tension with academic merit—and in general, worth striving for, but not at the expense of excellence.” She concluded, “The proposals from these authors will not promote excellence. In academic medicine, that must take precedence.”
Do No Harm founder and chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb encourages members to review her post. “Sally Satel is an American treasure,” he said. “She is a psychiatrist and an author who has written extensively on the issues of the problems that progressivism has brought to American medical education and healthcare. Her latest article beautifully shows the foolishness of applying identity politics to the research establishment.”
Read the full guest post here.
Virginia Senate Bill Seeks to Fast-Track Mandatory Implicit Bias Training for Physicians and Nurses – With a $3.5M Price Tag
Uncategorized Virginia DEI Board of Nursing, Medical Board, State legislature Commentary Do No Harm StaffLast December, we reported that both chambers of the Virginia legislature had introduced bills that would force the state’s physicians and nurses to complete “unconscious bias” training in order to obtain and keep their licenses. This week, the budgetary impact of the Senate version of this bill was revealed – and it’s significant.
Senate Bill 35 (SB35) “directs the Board of Medicine and the Board of Nursing to require unconscious bias and cultural competency training as part of the continuing education and continuing competency requirements for renewal of licensure.” This is a novel requirement for Virginia’s doctors and nurses – and the Commonwealth is sparing no expense to make it a reality. According to the Department of Planning and Budget fiscal impact statement for this legislation, the preliminary estimate of the cost is no less than $3,478,000, beginning in FY25. Each Board will require five new full-time equivalent positions – at a cost of $140,750 each – to fulfill the internal requirements created by the bill.
It’s no wonder the anticipated price of implementation is so high. SB35 requires the Boards of Medicine and Nursing to:
But these costs are not limited to the state government’s budget. SB35 imposes even greater expense onto individuals practicing medicine or nursing in Virginia. Physicians are assessed a fee of $302 for an initial license application, and $377 for every biennial renewal. Nurses must pay $190 for an initial application and $140 for each renewal. The “unconscious bias” training requirement adds even more to the expenses associated with obtaining the mandatory 60 hours of continuing education for physicians and 30 hours for nurses. Providers of approved courses charge up to $30 per contact hour, and the required number of hours for SB35’s “comprehensive” training is yet to be determined.
Why is the Virginia General Assembly concluding that the Commonwealth’s doctors and nurses are racists who must be subjected to continual re-education about supposed biases that they presumably can’t change? This so-called “science” has been proven to be flawed, and already-burdened healthcare professionals have much better things to be doing with their time, energy, and money. Residents and taxpayers will eventually need to encounter the local healthcare system. They must be fully aware of this insulting attack on Virginia’s badly needed physicians and nurses, and ask the same questions.
America Needs Doctors, Not Activists
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe United States is projected to face a shortage of over 100,000 doctors by 2030, leaving millions of Americans with inadequate access to health care. Yet, some voices within the medical community would like to see medical schools prioritize the training of students in political activism, even if that means higher costs for students and more distractions from quality medical education.
A recent article in the American Association of Medical College’s (AAMC) journal Academic Medicine featured the perspectives of five medical students and residents on expanding medical schools’ curricula to include more instruction in public policy advocacy and added flexibility for student-activists to attend protests. The publication of this article is the latest example of the AAMC’s fervent support for institutionally sanctioned activism, alongside its Diversity, Inclusion, Culture, and Equity (DICE) Inventory, which grades medical schools based in part on how engaged those institutions are in political and legislative advocacy. Other instances include vocal opposition to efforts by communities to restrict dangerous gender transitions for minor patients.
The article, “The Case for Advocacy Curricula and Opportunities in Medical Education: Past Examples to Inform Future Instruction,” argues for three primary changes: adding “advocacy-centered formal teaching,” expanding extracurricular advocacy opportunities, and accommodating academic interruptions due to student-activism. These aims may not seem wholly unreasonable at first, but there are several reasons that institutions and the medical community should reject them.
Foremost, creating advocacy curricula requires institutions to add additional classes, which in turn will lead to needless increases in the cost of attendance. An additional course at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, such as the one praised by the authors of the article, costs thousands of dollars. Meanwhile, medical student debt has ballooned from $88,495 in 2000 to $241,600 in 2022. The financial burden of medical school remains a formidable barrier for many potential medical students, especially for students from the lowest income brackets. Adding expensive activism-focused coursework that is irrelevant to the practice of medicine is at best a decadent luxury for the wealthiest students; at worst, it is a perverse prioritization of ideology over concern for the financial limitations of most students’ budgets.
The high cost of medical school has national implications. Rising tuition costs and student debt undermine efforts to address physician shortages in high-need, low-paying states. The shortage of physicians varies considerably based on geography, and states that have lower average salaries for physicians are further disadvantaged when the costs of medical school increase and new doctors have to prioritize paying off student loans.
Training and coursework, however, are not enough for student-activists, who also want more opportunities for students to participate directly in political advocacy. But their demands are not just for more student-led groups on campus—they insist on schools accommodating their absences from class or rotations to attend protests and political rallies. The AAMC went even further, urging medical schools to overlook arrests of applicants and students if they were related to Black Lives Matter protests.
Medical students, like all Americans, enjoy the freedom to assemble and speak freely, but medical schools should not be compelled to accommodate, overlook, and even endorse students’ political activities, especially when those students violate the law.
The trend of medical education towards radical political activism distracts from the pressing needs of the American health care system to fill out its ranks of quality, capable doctors. The AAMC is driving much of this shift, and it is emboldening the most vocal students towards the same end. Meanwhile, a majority of Americans have a negative view of the health care system, and roughly half of Americans are dissatisfied with the quality of their medical care. Activism will not fix this crisis of confidence—but well-equipped, financially unencumbered doctors will.
S2E3: David L. Bernstein on the Rise of Antisemitism out of Toxic DEI
Uncategorized DEI PodcastDavid L. Bernstein, founder of the Jewish Institute for Liberal Values (JILV), joins the Do No Harm podcast to discuss the rise of anti-semitism, particularly with “woke” groups on university campuses seeking to ban Jewish speakers and those who support Israel. Since the October 7 terrorist attack, the blatant antisemitism raging across college campuses has continued to increase in a clear demonization of one group in an effort to prop up another.
David L. Bernstein speaks on this harmful phenomenon that has been carefully baked into the very foundation of universities for the past decade via toxic DEI initiatives that have prevented free thought and active debates.
Listen in via YouTube, Spotify, or Amazon Music.
A Letter to the President of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists
Uncategorized California Gender Ideology Medical association, Medical Journal CommentaryJanuary 30, 2024
Robin Andersen, LMFT
President, CAMFT Board of Directors
Dr. Andersen:
I have been a practicing therapist for the last 45 years and a proud member of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT). Today, I am writing to cancel my membership.
When I received the December 2022 issue of your magazine, The Therapist, the cover story gave me pause. It advocated for an aggressive approach to treating gender-questioning children, including some dangerous and permanently life-changing protocols. I read the article in full, and decided to write a letter to the editor in response.
The months following the submission of my letter have been a rollercoaster of pleasant surprises and sour disappointments. First, your magazine published my letter in March 2023, which filled me with hope that despite the left-of-center political values that dominate our line of work, our profession remained open to diverse viewpoints when delivered respectfully and with sound reasoning.
What occurred next also pleasantly surprised me. In today’s “cancel culture” social climate, I had expected a deluge of hate mail following my letter’s publication. This was not the case. Instead, I received many supportive emails from peers and colleagues who thanked me for my courage, and called me a voice of reason and common sense.
Can you believe we’ve deteriorated to the point in our profession where the simple act of writing a dissenting letter is considered an act of courage?
Nonetheless, given this onslaught of support, imagine my surprise when I opened the next issue of your magazine. Those expecting to see the letter to the editor section filled with responses and counter-points delivered by other professionals in the field were left disappointed to say the least.
What they found instead was a groveling apology issued by your organization. What’s worse, you erased my original letter from your online edition and replaced it with a similar apology.
I was very disappointed with the apology from CAMFT, which did not even attempt to address or debate the content of my letter. Instead, you attacked my character. You accused me of spreading misinformation. You accused me of causing vague “harm and pain” and profusely apologized for making such an editorial “mistake.”
“CAMFT is proud to be a diverse organization,” you wrote, while uprooting the seedlings of open dialogue surrounding one of the most critical issues facing our field today. “CAMFT does not wish to censor our members nor stifle discourse,” you wrote, on the page where my voice used to be.
Meanwhile, a small group of people were passively-aggressively organizing to have me removed from CAMFT, along with a litany of personal attacks online. This seems light years away from the “safe space for dialogue” that you claim to aspire to build.
We find ourselves at a dire and pivotal point, not only in our profession, but as a society. CAMFT can become a political activist organization, leaving professional minds to seek out information and varied clinical opinions elsewhere. Or it can use this experience as a teachable moment, to model for our industry at-large what respectful and open dialogue looks like.
Sadly, it appears CAMFT has chosen the former. Your responses to my concerns were delayed by weeks. I offered to revisit the letter word for word, and to reword any inadvertent inflammatory language before being reinstated into the magazine. I was not taken up on my offer. I also suggested three ways in which CAMFT can foster open dialogue and promote a greater diversity of perspectives at its next conference. These were met with no response.
Finally, weeks later, your organization confirmed it would be standing by its apology, including the attacks on me therein, and continue enforcing its DEI principles. Your position is clear, but I do not accept it.
Please know I am not alone in my disappointment. The professionals in your membership hold a range of viewpoints on the best ways to support gender-questioning youth, but fear retribution. This cannot remain and have our profession survive and thrive.
In fact, it is counter to our professional calling. How can we create brave spaces for our clients to speak freely, when we don’t offer the same dignity for ourselves?
CAMFT owes its membership an apology for printing such a letter, for dragging its feet toward a dialogue, and for its inability to engage with its members without them fearing retribution. We need an open atmosphere of free speech and scientific discussion and debate in order to do our jobs well, and in the professional and ethical manner that the public requires and expects.
It is with deep sadness that I write that CAMFT has lost its way, its integrity, as well as my respect.
And now it has lost my membership.
Sincerely,
Rick McCarthy, MFT
PS: As you have erased my original letter to the editor, I am re-posting it here. It is my greatest hope that others in the field will find it helpful while considering all perspectives on this topic before forming their own ethical and professional opinions.
Florida State Board of Education Permanently Prohibits DEI in the Florida College System, Implementing Strict Regulations
Uncategorized Florida DEI State board Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffAdd Florida State Colleges to the growing list of higher education institutes standing up to DEI discrimination and race-based exclusion.
On January 17, 2024, the State Board of Education implemented strict regulations to its 28 public community colleges and state colleges in the Florida College System (FCS), prohibiting DEI programs, activities, or policies that categorize individuals based on race or sex for the purpose of differential or preferential treatment.
“Florida remains committed to providing our students with a world-class education rooted in the pursuit of truth, rather than biased indoctrination,” a statement by the Department of Education said. This stance is the reason the state’s higher education system has ranked #1 in the nation by the U.S. News & World Report for seven consecutive years.
The new rule (6A-14.0718), officially implements within the Florida College System, the bill that Governor DeSantis signed into law last May (SB 266), prohibiting colleges, universities and medical schools using public funds to administer Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs and policies.
“If you look at the way this has actually been implemented across the country, DEI is better viewed as standing for discrimination, exclusion and indoctrination,” DeSantis said during a news conference at New College of Florida in Sarasota. “And that has no place in our public institutions.”
These Institutions are already subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting discrimination based on race, color or national origin, however DEI programs across the nation are commonly promoting current discrimination as a solution for past discrimination, in defiance of the spirit of Title VI.
Florida’s State Board of Education also nixed the course “Principles of Sociology,” a class exposing students to radical woke ideologies. In its place will be a comprehensive general education core course in American History aiming to provide students with an accurate and factual account of the nation’s past.
“Higher education must return to its essential foundations of academic integrity and the pursuit of knowledge instead of being corrupted by destructive ideologies,” said Florida Commissioner of Education Manny Diaz, Jr. “These actions today ensure that we will not spend taxpayers’ money supporting DEI and radical indoctrination that promotes division in our society.”
Ben Sasse, President of University of Florida, recently spoke about the broader problem of woke culture at higher institutions. “The culture of ideological conformity and monoculture at those schools is unhealthy not just for them but for the nation at large,” said Sasse, who added that the University of Florida’s would discipline students if they called for the genocide of Jewish people — violating the university’s bullying and harassment policy. While the University of Florida is part of the State University System and not the Florida College System, Sasse echoes the thoughts of many who see DEI systems in higher education trying to implement ideological homogeneity instead of true diversity.
That’s good advice in the wake of the January 20 filing of a federal civil rights complaint regarding UF-Jacksonville’s Health Care Excellence and Organizational Enrichment Women in Medicine and Science Awards. The complaint, filed with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Right by senior fellow Mark Perry, outlines discrimination based on sex or gender identity in four of the programs.
The Florida State College System and the State Board of Education deserve praise for adopting the rule and making “No DEI Spending” officially part of the written rulebook for the first time.
Report Reveals UVM’s Medical School Was Slow to Embrace DEI—But Has Big Plans to Change That
Uncategorized Vermont DEI University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe University of Vermont’s Larner College of Medicine will expand its diversity, equity, and inclusion practices as part of its upcoming strategic plan, according to the college’s response to a survey from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Larner College of Medicine scored 58.4 percent in the AAMC Diversity, Inclusion, Culture, and Equity (DICE) Inventory, indicating it could be fairly devoid of ideological indoctrination – especially when compared to other participating medical schools. But Vermont’s only medical school plans to adopt an array of concerning policies to raise its position in the AAMC’s DEI rubric.
The DICE Inventory results from Larner were part of a larger effort by the AAMC to pressure medical schools across the country to embrace controversial policies that discriminate against faculty and students on the basis of race, ethnicity, and other identity-based characteristics. A report by the AAMC revealed that the vast majority of medical schools have codified radical identity politics into official school policies. These policy changes have continued despite growing evidence of their divisive and antagonistic effects on the cultures of companies, schools, and other institutions.
The AAMC report relies on an extensive survey of medical schools across the country, but the report failed to reveal which specific schools participated.
The lack of transparency by the AAMC and participating institutions has left communities and policymakers alike in the dark about major policy shifts occurring within taxpayer-funded medical schools. As part of a national effort to bring transparency and accountability to medical schools, Do No Harm has sought access to the school-specific DICE Inventory documents submitted to the AAMC through freedom of information requests to publicly funded medical schools. These surveys provide invaluable insight into the extent to which our once-highly-trusted medical colleges have strayed from their foundational mission to educate capable and qualified doctors.
Here are some of the practices that Larner College of Medicine has embraced:
Under an “holistic” admissions approach, different (and often lower) academic standards are typically set for candidates based on immutable “diversity” characteristics like race and ethnicity. These practices can be used to systematically discriminate against more qualified applicants who do not belong to a set of identities that were deemed by university bureaucrats to need unequal, favorable treatment by the institution.
Under this policy, Vermont’s taxpayers are funding programs that disadvantage people of certain racial and ethnic backgrounds. In particular, it would disadvantage more than nine out of ten in-state residents based on state demographic statistics.
This means there’s a permanent woke bureaucracy pushing ideology on faculty, students, and other top administrators. In addition to consuming substantial resources that could otherwise be used for academics, these programs rarely measure meaningful, long-term outcomes for the students they serve. Instead, they pursue politically motivated activities within the university and the broader community.
Hiring policies that compel potential faculty members to produce written loyalty oaths to DEI ideology are antithetical to academic and intellectual freedom. Moreover, these practices undermine efforts to hire faculty based on their scholarly qualifications.
Figure 1. DEI initiatives at Larner College of Medicine.
Larner College of Medicine’s DEI policies warrant concern from the medical community, policymakers, and the public. While it is true that Larner has far fewer DEI-oriented policies and practices than many of its peer institutions, there are a number of reasons that policymakers and the public should remain vigilant.
First, the survey conducted by the AAMC did not weight the survey questions based on their relative impact on DEI-oriented institutional culture. Thus, a medical school’s low survey score does not necessarily indicate an absence of egregious DEI practices such as some of those enumerated above; rather, a low score could result from losing points on less controversial practices, such as not collecting copious amounts of demographic data for hiring and promotions. To some degree, this appears to be the case with Larner College of Medicine.
Second, Larner College of Medicine states in their DICE Inventory that they intend to include an expansion of specific DEI goals in the school’s upcoming strategic plan, Vision 2025. Since the release of the survey, Larner has delivered on that promise: DEI goals account for 20 percent of the school’s objectives across clinical, educational, research, and community strategic priorities.
Figure 2. Values statement of the Larner College of Medicine.
Finally, the most concerning aspect of Larner’s rollout of DEI is the school’s efforts to obfuscate its activities and thwart transparency. Case in point: Larner College of Medicine repeatedly refused to accommodate freedom of information requests from Do No Harm regarding its DICE Inventory submitted to the AAMC. Larner did eventually comply and release their survey, but the public deserves better cooperation from taxpayer-funded universities.
This sort of opacity from a publicly funded institution is as predictable as it is unacceptable. It is imperative that communities not only demand that medical institutions like Larner desist from these divisive, discriminatory, and reckless DEI policies, but that their administrators make a concerted effort to be more accommodating and transparent to the public.
S2E2: The Silencing of Nurses Who Challenge DEI
Uncategorized DEI Podcast Laura Morgan MSN, RN, Marilyn Singleton, MD, JDDr. Marilyn Singleton is joined by guest host and registered nurse Laura Morgan. Together, they discuss the recent push to indoctrinate medical professionals on DEI and so-called gender-affirming care. They are joined by three other nurses on the front lines of medicine who are speaking out against the forced exodus of medical professionals who want to focus on patient care, not social justice initiatives.
They welcome guest Rebecca Wall, a Kentucky-certified registered nurse anesthetist with 40 years of experience, Clete Weigel, an Ohio nurse forced out of the profession after he refused to complete implicit bias training, and Beth Rempe, a former nurse at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C.
Listen in via YouTube, Spotify, or Amazon Music.
The HIV Vaccine Trials Network Wants Research Scholars – But Only If They Meet Race-Based Criteria
Uncategorized International, United States DEI Research institutions Commentary Do No Harm StaffHave an interest in advancing the science of vaccines and immunology? Seeking an opportunity for mentoring and research funding? Look no further than the HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) – but only if you can meet their discriminatory eligibility requirements.
The Research and Mentorship Program (RAMP) helps with access to funding for research and provides mentorship for medical students with an interest in developing vaccines for the prevention of HIV. However, participation is limited to applicants who “self-identify as African American/Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Native American/American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, Asian and Pacific Islander.”
The program is supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (a division of the National Institutes of Health) and selects four to nine scholarship recipients each year. In addition to project funding and training, RAMP scholars receive free travel to a clinical research site affiliated with the HVTN to be mentored by an experienced investigator. Award amounts range from $20,000 to $70,000.
The RAMP Scholars program provides the opportunity for awardees to study at clinical trial sites all over the world, and U.S. tax dollars help with the funding. Why isn’t the HIV Vaccine Trials Network willing to extend the same opportunity to all eligible U.S. medical students? The HIV virus doesn’t discriminate according to race – and neither should the HVTN.
Health Affairs Drops Racial Fellowship Requirements Following Do No Harm Lawsuit
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical Journal Press Release Do No Harm StaffDeclaring Victory Over Discrimination, Do No Harm Voluntarily Drops Suit Against Health Affairs
On January 22, 2024, Do No Harm announced it voluntarily dropped a lawsuit against Health Affairs’ Health Equity Fellowship for Trainees after Health Affairs eliminated its discriminatory racial eligibility requirements.
In September 2022, Do No Harm filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the Health Affairs fellowship requirement was racially discriminatory against white students: Applicants were only eligible if they “identify as American Indian/Alaskan Native, African American/Black, Asian American, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, and Hispanic/Latino.” While the lawsuit was pending, Health Affairs eliminated the unlawful requirement. As Health Affairs no longer considers race in the fellowship, Do No Harm voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit without prejudice.
“We are pleased that Health Affairs has decided to drop its racially discriminatory requirements for their fellowship,” said Do No Harm Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb. “Segregation based on race is illegal and Health Affairs has recognized that. Do No Harm will continue to fight divisive and discriminatory ideology in healthcare wherever we can find it.”
The withdrawal filing can be found here: https:/ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_temp.pl?file=8719918-0–126033.pdf&type=application/pdf (donoharmmedicine.org).
The original lawsuit can be found here: We’re Suing Health Affairs For Racial Discrimination (donoharmmedicine.org).
S2E1: Discussing So-Called “Gender-Affirming Care” With Dr. Elliot Kaminetzky
Uncategorized Gender Ideology Podcast Marilyn Singleton, MD, JD, Stanley Goldfarb, MDDr. Elliot Kaminetzky joins hosts Dr. Stanley Goldfarb and Dr. Marilyn Singleton to discuss the harmful practice of so-called “gender-affirming care.”
Dr. Elliot Kaminetzky is a clinical psychologist and the founder and director of The Center for Child Behavioral Health as well as My OCD Care. He specializes in Parenting-based interventions for mood and behavioral challenges in children. He also specializes in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and other anxiety-based disorders (phobias, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and social anxiety).
Dr. Kaminetzky has publicly spoken out against unethical practices in the area of pediatric gender medicine and the silencing of concerned medical and mental health professionals. Dr. Kaminetzky recently opened Serenity Parent Consulting to provide parents with accurate information, useful resources, and to help them parent with serenity.
The core of the Hippocratic oath and the role of medical professionals. Nowhere is this commitment more important than the care of our children and teenagers, which is why we’re fighting to curtail the unscientific and individually harmful practice of so-called “gender-affirming care.” “Gender-affirming care” is based on the dangerous premise that any child who has distress that he or she thinks is related to their sex should automatically be treated with social transition to the sex of their choice followed by hormonal interventions and then possibly surgery to remove healthy body parts. Underlying mental health problems are usually not addressed–but some clinicians are fighting back.
Listen in on YouTube, Spotify, or Amazon Music.
Utah State Legislature Announces House Bill to Remove Identity Politics From Its Campuses
Uncategorized Utah DEI University of Utah School of Medicine Medical School, Public university Commentary Do No Harm StaffOn January 11, members of the Utah State Legislature introduced House Bill 261 (HB 261), which proposes a common-sense approach to keeping politicized ideologies out of its institutions of higher education.
Rep. Katy Hall and Sen. Keith Grover announced the bill, titled Equal Opportunity Initiatives, which prohibits state-funded institutions from “engaging in discriminatory practices.” This includes the prohibition of requiring faculty candidates applying to the University of Utah, home of the only medical school in the state, to commit to a particular ideology as a condition of employment.
HB 261 also requires these institutions to maintain a neutral stance on political issues and protect freedom of speech on university campuses and in the workplace. The bill centers on preventing discriminatory practices based on race or sex, including mandatory training sessions that push divisive philosophies that obstruct fairness and open dialogue.
“[O]ur colleges and universities must focus on their core missions of embracing academic excellence, fostering innovation, and cultivating a free marketplace of ideas,” Rep. Hall stated. “This legislation aims to support all students and faculty while promoting an environment of free, diverse, and open opinions.”
That’s good advice for the University of Utah School of Medicine’s ophthalmology residency program, which had a federal civil rights investigation opened in late 2022 for a clinical and research rotation that excludes white, Asian, and Middle Eastern applicants. And, as Do No Harm has demonstrated, the school has a history of pushing implicit bias training onto the staff and faculty search committees. The introduction of HB 261 is an important step toward restoring merit as the top qualification for faculty recruiting and hiring and ensuring an environment of genuine learning for Utah’s future healthcare professionals.
California Physicians’ Group ‘Summit’ Urges Doctors to Promote the ‘Health Equity’ Ideology – But Dr. Marilyn Singleton Pushes Back
Uncategorized California DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm Staff, Marilyn Singleton, MD, JDPhysicians for a Healthy California (PHC) – the philanthropic arm of the California Medical Association (CMA) – recently called upon the state’s doctors to make “health equity,” a Critical Race Theory (CRT)-inspired doctrine, a priority in their practices.
PHC held its Health Equity Leadership Summit on September 14-15, 2023, in San Jose.
The concept of “health equity” claims that “systemic racism” and “oppression” create substantial barriers for minority individuals who encounter the healthcare system. According to this ideology, achieving “race concordance” between minority doctors and patients means more people from minority racial and ethnic groups would obtain better health care.
This claim has been translated into diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies and practices to admit more minority medical school applicants to the nation’s medical schools – even if merit and abilities take a back seat to race and ethnicity.
A “welcome” letter to summit attendees obtained by Do No Harm (DNH) announced PHC’s interpretation of health equity – one that seems to prefer politicized virtue-signaling to sound medical and scientific knowledge:
According to the organization, the summit event sought to train “physicians, executives, advocates, and allies” in how to promote the issue of health equity in California by caring for “underserved communities throughout the state.”
Workshops at the summit provided encouragement to attendees to embrace the health equity philosophy in their practices. Session titles included:
Marilyn Singleton, M.D., a retired anesthesiologist and DNH senior fellow, attended the two-day summit.
“My overall impression of the conference was that the speakers were grim in their outlook on life,” Singleton, an accomplished black physician, told DNH during an interview. Dr. Singleton noted that some of the presenters at the summit were also competent minority women who nevertheless still feel the need to communicate “a sense of hopelessness and perpetual racism.”
“I find it curious that people who have made it, don’t speak from a place of ‘you can do it too,’” she explained, adding:
“You should be proud that somebody’s asking you how you made it and not looking at everything from such a negative point of view,” Singleton responds to such complaints. She observes that embracing a positive perspective “doesn’t deny that there’s issues, but we’re looking for solutions, not a way to just drill down on problems.”
Singleton added another theme of the summit was the notion that “patients have no agency,” and no responsibility to take charge of their medical care.
“Everything is done to them” was the narrative of the presenters, one that, she said, amounts to “a racist view in itself.”
Groupthink pervaded the summit, Singleton continued, noting that questions for the presenters had to be submitted via an app that presumably sent them to someone who vetted them. She said she attempted to submit a question reflecting the lack of positive views of the accomplishments of some minority physicians, but it wasn’t selected for consideration.
Singleton also observed the irrationality of the agenda that insists such CRT-inspired “equity” programs will change decades of minority social circumstances.
“All this stuff to me is missing the whole problem,” she said, elaborating:
A summit session panel, for example, featured Manisha Sharma, M.D., senior medical director at Blue Shield of California, referring to doctors who work with patients to encourage them to change their behaviors in order to improve their health as physicians who are “trained to blame and shame.”
“You’re the problem, you don’t eat right, that’s why you’re obese,” Sharma characterized an attempt to teach a patient how to take responsibility for her health.
“The entire time there was absolutely no focus on personal agency,” Diana Blum, M.D., a California neurologist who also attended the CMA/PHC health equity summit, told DNH:
Sharma, who identified herself as a “physician-activist” who views everything through the lens of “equity,” also told physician attendees they should all ensure their patients register to vote.
“That means everybody who comes through our doors, every person that you see in the gas station, everybody that you have on the street that you’re taking care of” should be registered to vote, she said.
LGBTQ-activist speakers reportedly schooled physicians attending the health equity summit on pronoun usage and provided a “resource” containing an LGBTQ glossary of terms.
“It was really bizarre,” Blum said. “How is it that we’re being lectured by folks on something that is not even scientific? What I read was anti-science, and they’re lecturing to physicians? I didn’t feel like these people were even educated on what they were saying – they couldn’t answer any of the questions about the pronouns that were asked of them.”
“Why are we wasting our time learning this and how is it going to actually improve patient care?” Blum asked. “None of that made sense to me.”
Both physicians walked away from the CMA/PHC health equity summit experiencing a sense of “lost opportunity” that doctors’ time could have been spent strategizing for real solutions for patient health problems, instead of blaming “the system” and allowing a radical political ideology to snatch power away from individual patients.
“I just felt like it was a lost opportunity, to be honest, because there are major issues that I face every day in my practice,” said Blum, elaborating:
“That’s what frustrated me,” she said. “Doctors don’t have much time. So, we’re taking time out of our busy schedule and making an effort to learn and to improve our practice. This was just a total waste on all fronts.”
While Singleton acknowledged some physicians may not be aware of what some minority or LGBTQ patients experience, her overall view of the “grimness” of the presenters, and the extent to which they blamed “the system,” gave her the sense “they were more wanting to create drones than educating people about things they may not know something about – like an army of social justice drones.”
“But there’s a difference between getting informed versus getting indoctrinated,” she said.
Despite the great effort by woke medical schools and associations to create a need for “racial concordance” between doctors and patients, DNH has already shown there is no evidence to support patients benefit from it with improved healthcare outcomes. As noted in the December 2023 report, overwhelming evidence suggests “it is irresponsible for medical organizations and political actors to push, in practice or policy, for racial concordance in medicine.”
The “attendant radical restructuring of healthcare along racial lines,” the authors added, “amounts to the return of segregation of medicine, sowing seeds of distrust between physicians and patients of different races.”
“The idea of separating the races should be relegated to the ash heap of history,” the authors concluded, “not revived by the false and dangerous claim that they are needed to improve health outcomes.”