The program is ostensibly designed to eliminate “implicit bias.” Yet it promotes a very explicit one — a real doozy, too.In fact, states a lawsuit filed by a coalition of California doctors against their state’s medical board, training now compulsory for Golden State physicians teaches that “white individuals are naturally racist.”Of course, anti-white “anti-bias” training is common today. Yet one could wonder about the above. Since “racism” is our most obsessed-upon modern “sin” (the actual Seven Deadly Sins are passé), what are the implications of saying that whites alone carry with regard to it the stain of original sin? Must they be subjected to genetic engineering to purge this defect from them?Or must we go even further and, as the racialists say, “erase whiteness,” which has become a euphemism for erasing white people?Whatever the case, WGMD.com has the Golden State story, writing:

Two California doctors and a medical advocacy group, Do No Harm, filed a joint lawsuit Aug. 1 against the state’s medical board to terminate its mandatory “implicit bias training,” contending that it infringes on their freedom of speech rights.The progressive training is required for all medical professionals in the Golden State who seek to advance their education. “Implicit bias” suggests medical practitioners treat patients differently based on factors like race or sexuality, possibly leading to different health outcomes.The lawsuit targets state legislation passed in 2019, AB 241, which defines health care-linked implicit bias as subconscious “attitudes or internalized stereotypes.”Los Angeles doctors Marilyn Singleton and Azadeh Khatibi and Do No Harm say the law instead coerces medical professionals to violate their freedom of speech rights to “compel speakers to engage in discussions on subjects they prefer to remain silent about,” according to the filing.Do No Harm says the law requires physicians “to adopt an ideology that is unpersuasive nor unsupported by evidence to presume all healthcare providers are infected with implicit bias and thus treat patients differently.”“The government cannot condition a speaker’s ability to offer courses for credit on the requirement that [he] espouse the government’s favored view on a controversial topic. This case seeks to vindicate those important constitutional rights,” the lawsuit reads.

“The case, formally titled Azadeh Khatibi, et al. v. Kristina Lawson [president of California’s Medical Board], et. al, was originally filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) on behalf of Dr. Azadeh Khatibi, an ophthalmology specialist who immigrated to the United States from Iran when she was six,” Just the News adds.Khatibi, who’s also a continuing medical education instructor, filed the case because, among other reasons, she dislikes being compelled to discuss “implicit bias,” as it is irrelevant to her course topics, states the PLF complaint.The irony here is that while “‘implicit bias’ suggests medical practitioners treat patients differently based on factors like race … leading to different health outcomes,” this is precisely what they’re supposed to do.As the late Dr. Walter E. Williams wrote in 2013 after pointing out that diseases don’t plague groups equally (e.g., black men have America’s highest prostate-cancer rate), “Simply by knowing a patient’s race or ethnicity, a medical practitioner can be alert to and better customize a patient’s screening needs.”As for the races’ “different health outcomes,” while whites (average lifespan 78.9) do outlive blacks (75.3), they are outlived themselves by Asian-descent Americans (85.7) and Hispanics (82.2). Is this attributable to “implicit” medical-practitioner bias against whites? Or are groups’ different lifestyle choices a better explanation (e.g., blacks have our country’s highest obesity rate)?The kicker is that implicit-bias training is actually counterproductive. As Do No Harm wrote in a press release, “‘The implicit bias requirement promotes the inaccurate belief that white individuals are naturally racist,’ said Dr. Marilyn Singleton, a visiting fellow of the Do No Harm organization and California anesthesiologist who teaches continuing medical education courses in California. ‘This message can be detrimental to medical professionals and their patients as it creates an atmosphere of suspicion and animosity, which goes against the fundamental principle of doing no harm.’”

Read the Whole Article