search
Richard Kronenfeld
Adult Ba'al Teshuvah Ph.D. Physicist

Medical School Malpractice

Embed from Getty Images

“Vayivro Elokim es haAdom b’tsalmo b’tselem Elokim boro oso zachor un’kavo boro osom”

“So G-d created Man in His image, in the image of G-d He created him; male and female He created them.”

Bereyshis 1:27 (Art Scroll Stone Chumash, pp. 8-9)

Until quite recently, no sane person, secular or religious, would have quarreled with the words “male and female” in this pasuk [verse]. Now, however, supposedly intelligent people contend that there are multiple genders (as many as 71 in some employers’ list of choices).  Our President contends that there are at least three genders, and when challenged to name them, replies “Oh, come on,” as if he were relating established fact. (Perhaps he had once heard the joke that my fourth-grade classmate Leslie Schwartz told me so many years ago that there are three sexes – the male sex, the female sex, and the insects.)

Moreover, as commentator Dennis Prager recalled on a recent broadcast, in October 2019, shortly before the COVID pandemic started, he appeared on the Bill Maher show and remarked that the Left was circulating the idea that men can menstruate and give birth. The studio audience, the panel, and the host all laughed, and Bill Maher scoffed. Today, two and a half years later, what began as absurd has become widely accepted, albeit largely out of fear. Furthermore, a multiplicity of genders has been introduced – – nonbinary, transgender, intersex, and so on, with corresponding new personal pronouns. Again, anyone who questions this is labeled a hater.

The previous paragraph might be laughable if not for the dangerous consequences that flow from it. An entire generation of children is being subjected to a cruel experiment aimed at confusing their gender identity to show that it is malleable, hence there is nothing amiss with the less than one per cent of the population that is transgendered. Actually, there is an uncommon condition, gender dysphoria, which expresses itself in the feeling that one is really of the opposite gender than their genitalia would have it. Appearing on Amala Ekpunobi’s podcast “Unapologetic,” former evolutionary biologist Colin Wright observed that 85-90% of minors with gender dysphoria outgrow it, and for the most part become homosexual adults. It is also the case that much of the uncertainty in sexual identity among teenage girls is driven by social media.

Adults, too, face dire consequences. How would you feel if your mother, sister, wife or daughter were using the facilities in a transgendered public rest room when a biological male walks in, claims to be transgendered, and takes the opportunity for voyeurism or worse? How should teenage girls feel when biological males are allowed to share their locker rooms and showers (and anyone who objects is labeled a bigot and punished)? And if you believe I’m being melodromatic, read Abigail Shrier’s book “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters,or, for a shorter summary, “Abigail Shrier on Freedom in an Age of Fear.”

In reality, gender fluidity is a stepping stone to the Left’s real goal of eliminating the nuclear family, going back to Lenin’s abortive attempt to outlaw marriage when he first took power. The reason is that without a family structure, everyone becomes an atomized individual and can be better controlled by the State, which is their substitute for G-d.

As I have written in another post, since gender transitioning generally has the side effect of permanent sterility, the LGBTQ lobby needs to recruit new cohorts, and the easiest way to do that is to influence minors to transgender, preferably without parental knowledge, with teachers or psychologists steering them to taking puberty blockers and then to gender reassignment surgery performed by surgeons amputating perfectly healthy body parts. The “groomers” defend themselves with the notion that gender is purely a social construct and one can transform oneself into whatever gender one desires to be. The Biden administration has made it clear that it seeks to prevent state governments or parents from “interfering” with the process on the grounds that transition is essential medical care for transgendered youngsters, whereas in fact it can produce long-term psychological damage besides sterility. In my view, physicians who enable transitioning are violating the Hippocratic Oath (first do no harm),

The medical establishment could re-establish sanity, but it has chosen to go woke, too. The American Medical Association now advocates not recording gender on a baby’s birth certificate, as the prevailing philosophy is that gender is a “guess” based on genitalia, and that we should wait for the child to grow up and decide for him-, her-, ze- or whatever-self which gender to be. Further, the AMA and the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC), which are the agencies that accredit medical schools, are pushing for medical schools to include in their curriculum and requirements not only the new theory of gender identity, but also critical race theory, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. With their accreditation at stake, medical schools are rushing to incorporate social justice activism and DEI in their courses, not to mention teaching that any difference in health between identity groups results from racism, with genetic differences discounted. That in turn leads to proposals of instituting racial preferences in health care, such as priority for certain medications and monoclonal antibody treatment, in violation of civil rights and Obamacare laws. Several states that introduced such discrimination have backed off under counter-pressure, while New York, which is holding fast, has been sued. Additionally, there will doubtless be calls for greater affirmative action in medical school admissions, which are likely to be answered by making tests pass-fail and watering down courses. Social activism is becoming an essential component of medical training. For a deeper discussion of possible consequences of woke medical education, the video webinar “Hypocritical Oath” (National Association of Scholars, February 3, 2022) is recommended.

To illustrate the terrible damage that can ensue when the scientific search for truth is subordinated to ideology, consider Lysenkoism. Briefly, Trofim Lysenko was a Soviet agronomist who achieved prominence in the mid-1930’s when Stalin endorsed his theory that winter wheat could be made to sprout early in the spring by inheritance, that is, acquired characteristics could be inherited. This theory was similar to that of Lamarck, which by then had been thoroughly discredited within the scientific community, as it flew in the face of everything that was known about genetics. Stalin, however, liked Lysenkoism on ideological grounds, as it meshed with the Marxist goal of creating a “new Soviet man,” that is, changing human nature such that people would willingly suppress their individual aspirations for the good of the collective.

Predictably, when a dictator embraces an idea, it becomes widely accepted. And in a totalitarian society such as the Soviet Union, those who disagree are silenced, even liquidated. During two rounds of purges before and after World War II, thousands of biologists lost their positions, many hundreds were arrested and prosecuted, and some were undoubtedly among the 700,000 Soviet citizens executed during the great purge of 1937-38. Criticism of Lysenkoism ceased, and even after Stalin’s death, the new ruler, Nikita Khrushchev, supported Lysenko. It wasn’t until a year after Leonid Brezhnev came to power in 1964 that Lysenko was removed from his position as Director of the Institute of Genetics of the Academy of Sciences.

By that time, the damage was done. Lysenko was free to implement his unsubstantiated procedures, with the result that millions of his fellow countrymen died of starvation, especially during the famine of 1946-47 brought about by drought. That was of little concern to Stalin, since it dovetailed with his policy of “liquidating the kulaks” [peasants who owned their own plot of land] in order to collectivize agriculture.

Once Lysenko was removed from power, his influence waned in the USSR and Eastern Europe, and his theory came to be regarded as a harmful side effect of Stalinism. Sadly, in the last two decades a cadre of neo-Stalinists, including scientists, have been pushing a revival of Lysenkoism.

We should add a parochial concern. The strengthening of affirmative action programs, coupled with the rising anti-Semitism in academia, will likely make it much more difficult for Jewish students to gain admission to medical schools – unless perhaps they adopt the radical views of the medical student association “White Coats, Black Lives,” which has pushed successfully for adopting the “woke” curriculum. If nothing changes, it may be worthwhile to consider foreign medical schools, such as the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico, or the medical colleges in the West Indies. Another option which I just saw advertised in The Jewish Press is that Tel Aviv University School of Medicine now has a four-year program conducted in English (The American Medical Program) and then helps arrange residencies back in the United States for its graduates.

The bottom line is that medicine is changing rapidly, and not for the better. What can one do? It has been suggested not to become a patient of any doctor who entered medical school after 2020, and when that option is no longer available, to seek out graduates either of foreign medical schools or American schools that somehow are able to evade the radical Leftist takeover.

Heaven help us all.

About the Author
I'm a native New Yorker (Brooklyn, to be precise) transplanted to the desert as a teen-ager. I hold a Ph.D in Physics from Stanford and have taught mathematics and physics at the high school, community college, and university level. I'm an adult ba'al teshuvah and label myself as centrist Orthodox and a Religious Zionist along the lines of OU, Yeshiva University, and Mizrachi.
Related Topics
Related Posts
Comments