Thank you! I completely agree. We have strayed from our roots. As physicians we cannot solve societal ills, we do not have the tools, we are ill equipped and frankly it distracts us from our core mission. It is so so depressing to me to see the young physician given an impossible task of prioritizing "inclusion and diversity" in our work. Our work is healing of the individual, not reconstruction of the social structure. We are so mislead about health care "inequity" to focus only on color of skin when the real inequity has a lot more to do with physicians not wanting to stray from their academic and urban and 'safe' like-thinking institutions to take care of the neglected in the rest of the country (or even world).
Thank you. The most interesting thing about this is that DEI is not even living up to its stated goals of benefiting underrepresented minorities. It's purpose is something else, but deprioritizing health and healing are what make it most dangerous.
Thank you for these excellent and insightful comments. As a fellow physician, I share your concerns. These updated oaths clearly have an ideological tinge, when really they should be highlighting universally shared values. These oaths are divisive and are a clear distraction from what the true foundations of medicine are. Also I find it interesting that many of these oaths cite "social justice" but don't bother to provide their definition of "justice". Are the medical students even aware of what they are expected to proclaim their allegiance to? Most of us with a reasonable awareness of current politics know that progressives use the term "social justice" as shorthand for a variety of left-wing (often controversial) causes. Medical schools should not compel students to support political causes that have no direct connection to medicine.
Thank you for the comment, Michael. I love the last line. A lot of this compels students to support political causes. Unfortunately, a lot of it is student-led. The minority opinion is silenced. They need our support.
I agree completely. It's not unreasonable for medical schools to encourage students to advocate for their patients (in a very generic sense). However the schools should not dictate to students what particular positions to adopt, or create the impression that students will be punished for holding the "wrong" political views.
Nikki, so wonderful to see you continuing to fighting the good fight. I continue to be so perplexed and astonished at how far astray we have gone from caring about our patients into caring about identities. Today, a CDC prospective study we participate in removed the gender ID question fields for a disease whose severity and presentation is specifically de by sex, not gender (ie; whether their innate chromosomes or XX or XY). The fact that this was even a question is beyond any reason. They made the change because of the EO signed this week, but the fact that it was ever put in as a question goes to show how ideology has replaced rationale, scientific logic.
Well said! Doctors work in many situations where lives are on the line, and it's troubling to see there are places shifting the focus away from medical proficiency. Thank you for sharing this important message!
DEI encourages non-traditional racism, and I wonder whether DEI-addled medical professionals on some level are providing lower-quality care for 'bad' people - whites, males, Jews, etc. - as some sort of messed-up 'payback'.
When you frame it like that, I get what you are saying. And, it’s the conflation and lack of distinctions that is standing in the middle of the pro and anti-DEI ideological spat.
It may not be possible to separate the dangerous and unhelpful social justice/anti-racist debacle of the past five years.
And, perhaps the attention put on it will open up channels for a dialogue beyond the rhetorical to ensue, at least for those not wedded to an ideological pole.
Somehow you miss what DEI REALLY MEANS, even in the OATH. You sound like everyone who believes DEI is negative. That initiative simply advocates for understanding not an attempt to undermine quality and rigor. For too long inclusion of DIVERSE PEOPLE EXPERIENCES WITH HEALTH in research, which you say is important, was missing or based on specific groups. DEI simply emphasizes the need to bring attention to, not deflection from, health and medical practice for ALL!
DEI programs and policies are neither about diversity, equity, nor inclusion. They are about identifying oppressed people versus oppressors, capitalism vs. anti-capitalism. This doesn't belong anywhere in medical school or the Hippocratic Oath.
Again, your statement sounds like you agree that's it negative, ult imately. Your statement implies that because those words that are meant to provoke and ultimately inspire respect for differences in patient's experiences is bad. Doctors can not fix social ills but you can consider them when treating patients. This is also why the majority of you specialize and don't go into undeserved communities. It's too hard to deal with social ills and then to be obligated by an oath is even harder. I get it! But it should be in the Oath. Your profession takes for granted your privileged status, and it is a privilege that comes along with a lot of advantages for yourself and family. Not everyone has those and your profession sees people at their worst!
Thank you! I completely agree. We have strayed from our roots. As physicians we cannot solve societal ills, we do not have the tools, we are ill equipped and frankly it distracts us from our core mission. It is so so depressing to me to see the young physician given an impossible task of prioritizing "inclusion and diversity" in our work. Our work is healing of the individual, not reconstruction of the social structure. We are so mislead about health care "inequity" to focus only on color of skin when the real inequity has a lot more to do with physicians not wanting to stray from their academic and urban and 'safe' like-thinking institutions to take care of the neglected in the rest of the country (or even world).
Thank you. The most interesting thing about this is that DEI is not even living up to its stated goals of benefiting underrepresented minorities. It's purpose is something else, but deprioritizing health and healing are what make it most dangerous.
May your voice be heard in every ear in the medical field!
Thank you Hazel-rah! That's the goal.
Thank you for these excellent and insightful comments. As a fellow physician, I share your concerns. These updated oaths clearly have an ideological tinge, when really they should be highlighting universally shared values. These oaths are divisive and are a clear distraction from what the true foundations of medicine are. Also I find it interesting that many of these oaths cite "social justice" but don't bother to provide their definition of "justice". Are the medical students even aware of what they are expected to proclaim their allegiance to? Most of us with a reasonable awareness of current politics know that progressives use the term "social justice" as shorthand for a variety of left-wing (often controversial) causes. Medical schools should not compel students to support political causes that have no direct connection to medicine.
Thank you for the comment, Michael. I love the last line. A lot of this compels students to support political causes. Unfortunately, a lot of it is student-led. The minority opinion is silenced. They need our support.
I agree completely. It's not unreasonable for medical schools to encourage students to advocate for their patients (in a very generic sense). However the schools should not dictate to students what particular positions to adopt, or create the impression that students will be punished for holding the "wrong" political views.
Nikki, so wonderful to see you continuing to fighting the good fight. I continue to be so perplexed and astonished at how far astray we have gone from caring about our patients into caring about identities. Today, a CDC prospective study we participate in removed the gender ID question fields for a disease whose severity and presentation is specifically de by sex, not gender (ie; whether their innate chromosomes or XX or XY). The fact that this was even a question is beyond any reason. They made the change because of the EO signed this week, but the fact that it was ever put in as a question goes to show how ideology has replaced rationale, scientific logic.
Thanks, Tom. We have gone astray from the original foundation of medicine. Some people won't see the effects until people have been harmed by them.
Well said! Doctors work in many situations where lives are on the line, and it's troubling to see there are places shifting the focus away from medical proficiency. Thank you for sharing this important message!
Thank you for reading.
It’s okay, even though the patient died, we never once dead-named them or messed up xir pronouns, and that’s what really matters!
DEI encourages non-traditional racism, and I wonder whether DEI-addled medical professionals on some level are providing lower-quality care for 'bad' people - whites, males, Jews, etc. - as some sort of messed-up 'payback'.
People need to stop rewriting history to suit their (oftimes feeble, always self-serving) ends.
I agree with what is said. But DEI (as I and anyone of substance who has practiced it) is not affirmative admissions/representation.
Your headline is attention grabbing heading but it’s inaccurate as it is not “inclusion and diversity”.
I agree that DEI is not affirmative admissions/represenation. It is also not diversity, inclusion, or equity. I'm not sure where we disagree.
When you frame it like that, I get what you are saying. And, it’s the conflation and lack of distinctions that is standing in the middle of the pro and anti-DEI ideological spat.
It may not be possible to separate the dangerous and unhelpful social justice/anti-racist debacle of the past five years.
And, perhaps the attention put on it will open up channels for a dialogue beyond the rhetorical to ensue, at least for those not wedded to an ideological pole.
Agreed. Thank you for your thoughtful insight.
Somehow you miss what DEI REALLY MEANS, even in the OATH. You sound like everyone who believes DEI is negative. That initiative simply advocates for understanding not an attempt to undermine quality and rigor. For too long inclusion of DIVERSE PEOPLE EXPERIENCES WITH HEALTH in research, which you say is important, was missing or based on specific groups. DEI simply emphasizes the need to bring attention to, not deflection from, health and medical practice for ALL!
DEI programs and policies are neither about diversity, equity, nor inclusion. They are about identifying oppressed people versus oppressors, capitalism vs. anti-capitalism. This doesn't belong anywhere in medical school or the Hippocratic Oath.
Ok!
DEI is not negative. It is just inappropriate in the Hippocratic oath
Again, your statement sounds like you agree that's it negative, ult imately. Your statement implies that because those words that are meant to provoke and ultimately inspire respect for differences in patient's experiences is bad. Doctors can not fix social ills but you can consider them when treating patients. This is also why the majority of you specialize and don't go into undeserved communities. It's too hard to deal with social ills and then to be obligated by an oath is even harder. I get it! But it should be in the Oath. Your profession takes for granted your privileged status, and it is a privilege that comes along with a lot of advantages for yourself and family. Not everyone has those and your profession sees people at their worst!