A vast majority of leading American medical societies have adopted left-leaning political positions unrelated to their health specializations, the anti-woke medical advocacy group Do No Harm reported in a new study made public this week.
Since 2010, the group found that 26 out of 28 — 93% — of the nation’s leading medical societies have published statements on affirmative action or racism, 57% on climate change, 50% on immigration, 39% on Ukraine, and 18% on the ongoing war in the Middle East.
Three have spoken publicly on all five issues, despite the face that the topics range far from their fields of expertise: the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Cardiology and the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Aside from being politically correct and leaning heavily to one side of the political spectrum, the statements undercut the credibility and perceived objectivity of the groups that make them, Do No Harm argues. The medical groups also take positions on contested issues that not all of their members support.
“The politicization of medical societies represents a betrayal of the public’s trust in health care,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Do No Harm’s chairman and a former associate dean for curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania’s medical school. “Dues-paying members of the societies and the public they serve should expect nothing less than institutional neutrality from all specialist groups.”
Do No Harm searched the associations’ websites for official statements in press releases, open letters and position statements published in academic journals on political issues and events.
To take one example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists posted a statement on the dangers of man-made climate change in 2016 and updated it in 2021. It “calls on our national and international leaders to act to curb greenhouse gas emissions and limit further climate destabilization.”
Only two societies, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the American Academy of Dermatology, have not issued any policy statements on hot-button issues.
“We are aware of the report, but do not have a comment at this time,” said Deanna Killacky, a spokeswoman for the Illinois-based AAOS. “Please don’t hesitate to reach out for other stories.”
Lobbying record
The report also compared the societies’ public statements with an estimated $13.5 million the website Open Secrets said they devoted to political lobbying this year. It concluded that most of that money — unlike the rhetoric — focused on relevant public health issues rather than on the political statements posted online.
For example, Do No Harm said the American Academy of Dermatology spent $1.2 million to push for taxes on tanning beds and the American College of Cardiology directed $970,000 to support tobacco prevention policies “because they see these agendas as important to their causes.”
While 11 medical societies issued statements condemning Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the report noted that just five spoke out about the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel in October 2023.
The American College of Cardiology condemned the Oct. 7 attack against Israel on Oct. 15. Two weeks later, the report found it backtracked, revising its earlier position to note “that no statement at any one point in time can truly reflect the diversity of perspective and the impact of the dynamic and fluid nature of the events and their consequences to the lives of all those in the region.”
“As such, the College will make no further statements on this crisis,” the ACC added.
The Washington Times reached out for comment to all 28 medical associations. They either did not respond or declined to comment.
“Thanks for reaching out to us,” said Brian Edwards, a spokesman for the American College of Surgeons. “We do not have any comment on this report.”
Do No Harm found that ACS released statements condemning systemic racism, expressing support for Ukraine in its war against Russia, and warning against the dangers of climate change.
Racism was the most popular political issue for U.S. medical associations, however.
In a 2020 statement posted on its website in the aftermath of Black Lives Matter protests nationwide, the surgeons’ group declared that ending “police brutality against people of color” is “among the most important missions of the ACS.”
The report comes as the U.S. medical establishment has endorsed multiple racial diversity initiatives in recent years — a stance that could put it at odds with recent legal rulings, including one from the Supreme Court last year — challenging many race-based affirmative action programs.
On its website, the American Medical Association has posted a “strategic plan to embed racial justice” in the medical profession.
The AMA pledges in the statement to “play a more prominent role in the current national reckoning on equity and justice” by using its “training platforms, programs, advocacy, communication and marketing infrastructure” as “levers for change.”
In 2022, nine researchers published a survey of 16 “expert(s) in anti-Black racism” who work in medical schools in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It recommended that all non-Black faculty members undergo mandatory sensitivity training as part of a “comprehensive intervention for dismantling anti-Black racism.”
Conservative medical advocates have pushed back hard on such policies, arguing that patient care suffers when medical associations put politics ahead of their fundamental scientific mission. President-elect Trump clashed repeatedly with the scientific establishment in his first four years in office, and his election victory earlier this month could set the stage for new clashes.
The venerable journal Scientific American has endorsed only two presidential candidates in its 180-year history: Democrat Joe Biden when he ran against Mr. Trump in 2020 and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris when she ran against Mr. Trump four years later. Earlier this month, a longtime editor with the magazine resigned shortly after she deleted social media messages she wrote described Mr. Trump’s supporters as “the meanest, dumbest, most bigoted” people.
On Thursday, some welcomed the Do No Harm report on the political activism of doctors’ associations.
“Pushback against the anti-science insanity driving almost all medical societies is long overdue and most welcome,” said Katy Talento, an epidemiologist who served as President Trump’s top health adviser at the White House Domestic Policy Council.
“The most shameful example has to be the American Academy of Pediatrics, with their commitment to school closures, Ozempic for six-year-olds, gender mutilations for confused kids, and much more,” she added. “Maybe if they spent more time trying to figure out why half of America’s kids have a chronic illness, when almost none did a generation ago, they might retain a shred of credibility.”
• Sean Salai can be reached at ssalai@washingtontimes.com.