We’re Doctors. Implicit Bias Training Has No Place in Medicine.

by Martin Caplan, MD, and Kenneth Lipstock, MD

Apparently, Virginia’s doctors and nurses are racist.

This is the message of two bills that are moving through the state legislature. The bills would force medical professionals to take ongoing “implicit bias training” to get and keep their license. The problem is that such training is insulting, dangerous, and scientifically indefensible. It’s grounded in the false idea that people mistreat and even oppress others, especially those of a different race.

It’s a popular narrative, but there is no sound evidence to support it. What is clear is that if our lawmakers pass these bills, they’ll encourage racial division and tribalism, while undermining the medical profession and hurting patients who need our help.

To be clear, we both believe that prejudice exists and is utterly unacceptable. Before we became doctors, there were blacks-only hospitals in our state. We’ve come a long way since those days, and wherever racism still exists, we need to eliminate it. People deserve to be treated as unique individuals, not as members of a particular group.

But implicit bias training will not eliminate prejudice, because it assumes that prejudice cannot be eliminated. The whole point of implicit bias is that it’s unconscious and engrained. There’s nothing you can do about it. You simply need to be constantly told you are racist and forced to confess your sins.

Hence what the Virginia legislature is pushing—endless re-education programs every few years. The medical advocacy group Do No Harm has shown that such training is rife with radicalism and falsehoods. As white men, the two of us should prepare for accusations that we contribute to “modern-day lynchings” and practice “white supremacy.” In fact, we practice medicine, helping thousands of patients—white, black, brown, you name it—based on their individual medical needs.

Besides, is implicit bias even real? The evidence is clear: no.

This concept arose in the 1990s, in conjunction with a psychological tool known as the “Implicit Association Test.” The test tries to determine your racial bias by seeing how quickly you associate “good” and “bad” words with white and black faces. If you’re too slow with black faces or associate better words with white faces, that apparently indicates bias. The test is a  fixture in implicit-bias training and leads to eye-popping claims that the vast majority of society is racist.

But the test suffers from major problems. Psychologists have since found that people who retake the test rarely get anywhere close to the same results—the most important measure of whether a test is accurate. If a test is going to tell someone that they’re racist, it better be accurate.

Research has also shown that the test doesn’t accurately determine who will commit racist acts. At most, according to scholars, it can predict between 2 and 5.6% of prejudiced actions. Such findings have led some of the test’s most prominent backers to admit that it can’t predict behavior because it leads to “undesirably high rates of erroneous classifications.” In other words, the test is useless.

These facts put what the legislature is trying to do in a new light. Why do doctors and nurses need implicit bias training that’s not based on sound science and can’t determine who will commit racist acts?

Worst of all, far from fighting racism, this training encourages the very racial division it purports to fight. It treats medical professionals differently based on their skin color. It may even cause patients to wonder if their doctor or nurse is going to hurt them. If a test accuses white doctors of bias, why would black patients want to see them? The doctor-patient relationship is built on trust, but the idea of implicit bias sows distrust. People will see each other through a racial lens, assuming the worst about others, instead of working together to improve health.

The truth is that doctors and nurses fight for their patients, regardless of who they are, what they look like, or where they came from. That’s why we take an oath to “do no harm.” We’ve always strived to uphold that oath. So has every medical professional we’ve worked with over decades of practice. But there will be harm if the state legislature moves forward with this implicit bias training mandate.

Martin Caplan, M.D., is a cardiologist. Kenneth Lipstock, M.D., is an ophthalmologist. They both live in Richmond.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

28 responses to “We’re Doctors. Implicit Bias Training Has No Place in Medicine.”

  1. Chip Gibson Avatar
    Chip Gibson

    A fine article. Yet another woke initiative underway, targeting our health providers. Not being a doctor myself, capable of rendering a full diagnosis, it remains self-evident that woke is a wide-spread disease, perhaps a pandemic…becoming chronic in nature. Should not government funding be offered to pursue a cure and application of that remedy?

  2. LarrytheG Avatar

    I’m a heavy skeptic of the “training” and other efforts like it but at the same time I see this:

    THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN HEALTHCARE

    ” A few examples are illustrative: infant mortality for black babies remains nearly 2.5 times higher than for white babies; the life expectancy for black men and women remains at nearly 1 decade fewer years of life compared with their white counterparts; diabetes rates are more than 30% higher among Native Americans and Latinos than among whites; rates of death attributable to heart disease, stroke, and prostate and breast cancers remain much higher in black populations, and minorities remain grossly under-represented in the health profession’s workforce relative to their proportions in the population.”

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3540621/#:~:text=A%20few%20examples%20are%20illustrative,higher%20among%20Native%20Americans%20and

    1. Damn… Doctors caused all these problems?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        I don’t know. Think everyone has the same access? Like only 6% of doctors are black. why is that?

        1. Monument Avenue, of course.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            nationwide?

        2. DJRippert Avatar

          According to various estimates, Muslim Americans make up more than 5% of the US physician workforce. This is while only 1% of the US population is Muslim.

          Damn Muslim Supremacists.

          Anti-Catholicism is apparently alive and well in the US medical community.

    2. DJRippert Avatar

      Now, add Asians to that analysis. Oh, what?!? White Supremacy doesn’t apply to Asians?

      Is it really White and Asian Supremacy?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Jim Crow White Supremacy?

        1. DJRippert Avatar

          You’re getting warmer. Historically, large numbers of relatively uneducated immigrants coming to America have taken a couple generations to get to the mean. Italians, Irish, Chinese. For the Hispanics, you have to look at how long the families have been in the United States since the immigration wave of Hispanics is ongoing. I’m confident that Hispanics whose families immigrated to the US two or more generations ago are doing just fine.

          Then we get to Black Americans. Most are from families that have been in America for many generations. And far too many are not doing fine at all.

          Slavery, Jim Crow, ongoing prejudice – there are undoubtedly reasons for the slow economic progress of Black Americans.

          But that’s where the focus needs to be – on Black Americans. Not on “people of color”, not on White Supremacy, not on White privilege.

          All that is liberal gaslighting.

          The question needs to be “Why has American society found it so challenging to provide sufficient pathways for Black Americans who have been in the country for generations to prosper?”

          That’s a question all Americans should contemplate.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            re: blacks vs people of color – could not agree more!

            100 yrs of Jim Crow that Asians and Hispanics did not get subjected to that did very much result in generational damage to black families who lost out against primarily whites.

            What part of that is “gaslighting”? It’s the simple truth. You want to compare family wealth between blacks and whites? Family wealth of Asians is due primarily to higher income Asians immigrating to the US not so much to their efforts to overcome racism.

          2. I guess you’re forgetting those Democratic Jim Crow Internment camps a few decades ago

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            You’re comparing relatively short-lived internment camps to more than a hundred years of Jim Crow treatment of generations of families?

            sounds about right for what you apparently believe.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            Indeed. Does that equate to being a slave followed by 100+ years of Jim Crow that has resulted in real world impacts to family wealth and education levels?

  3. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    The woke ideology is alive and well. To the extent that there is bias the proposed training will not eliminate it.
    The reasons for the racial mix of the medical profession and health disparities are education, economic, personal choice of occupation.

  4. LarrytheG Avatar

    “Historically, stillbirth risk factors are more prevalent among non-Hispanic Black women than non-Hispanic White women, including age < 20, lower formal educational attainment, prepregnancy obesity, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, short interpregnancy interval, small for gestational age newborn, late prenatal care, and previous cesarean birth. We examined whether these disparities have changed since 2011 and identified a group of risk factors that differed between Black women and White women when accounting for correlations among variables. Methods: In a random sample of 315 stillbirths from the National Center for Health Statistics’ 2016 fetal death data, Black women and White women were compared for each risk factor using t-tests or chi-square tests. Variables with p ≤ .20 were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance. Results: In this sample, Black women experiencing stillbirth were less likely to have a Bachelor’s degree (12.94% vs. 28.49%, p = .04), and more likely to be obese (44.5% vs. 29.1%, p = .01) than White women. Multivariate analysis accounting for correlations among variables showed a group of risk factors that differed between Black women and White women: age < 20, lower education, prepregnancy obesity, hypertension (chronic and pregnancy-associated), nulliparity before stillbirth, and earlier gestation.”

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9026592/#:~:text=Historically%2C%20stillbirth%20risk%20factors%20are,newborn%2C%20late%20prenatal%20care%2C%20and

  5. Not Today Avatar

    Implicit bias training in medicine is absolutely necessary and is less about confessing sins than opening eyes to issues many don’t think about. It presents itself in the disdain and disbelief with which black women’s maternal health issues are treated and results in millions in damages and increased deaths. It also leads to the mistaken belief that black people have higher pain tolerances and the undertreatment of pain. Training increases the chance that nursing textbooks aren’t published (and in use as recently as 2015) that inaccurately report on the cultural concerns of patients by race. All of this is documented.

    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/10/23/nursing-textbook-pulled-over-stereotypes

    https://calmatters.org/health/2023/10/despite-high-black-maternal-death-rate-california-hospitals-ignored-training-about-bias-in-care/

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      If people never engage a doctor until late in their pregnancy, is that really a direct “bias” issue as much as it might be the woman has no money for a doctor, can’t find one, etc?

      One has to want to be and able to be under the care of a doctor FIRST I would think before we talk about if that doctor is biased towards some patients.

      Neither side in the culture war seems that interested in actually addressing the issues sometimes.

      It does not and should not be about “race” IMO. It ends up that way, in part, because of how poverty affects access to health care.

      1. Not Today Avatar

        Yes, it is a direct bias issue. It’s an issue that implicates both access to care (which is known to affect black and brown women at greater rates) as well as treatment by providers (an issue that makes people less likely to seek care even when it’s available), that’s even before you get to the quality of the care on offer. Yet another indicator is that CONTROLLING FOR INCOME and ACCESS, maternal outcomes for high income black women with insurance and care are the same as for poor white women.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          There can be bias also on the part of doctors if they feel their patients are not directly involved
          in their own care, i.e. taking care of themselves per doctors recommendations. Waiting to go to the doctor when you are pregnant so your care is proactive rather than reactive. Others do this also, they wait to see the doctor and that is not good for a problem ongoing. Seeing a doctor for obesity and hypertension on a regular basis BEFORE getting pregnant is an example. People of lower economic means tend to not invest in their own care regardless of race.

          1. Not Today Avatar

            You’re making several BIG assumptions about people not receiving care. Not receiving care does not mean ‘forgoing care’ (which presumes it’s available and affordable) and turning that assumption into a secondary belief that people can’t, won’t or aren’t taking care of themselves or don’t wish to receive care. THAT IS BIAS IN ACTION. Imagine multiplying that negativity across an entire nation of providers and see how that impacts the care people receive from providers who see them as negligent, non-compliant, incapable, and unworthy.

          2. Not Today Avatar

            You’re making several BIG assumptions about people not receiving care. Not receiving care does not mean ‘forgoing care’ (which presumes it’s available and affordable) and turning that assumption into a secondary belief that people can’t, won’t or aren’t taking care of themselves or don’t wish to receive care. THAT IS BIAS IN ACTION. Imagine multiplying that negativity across an entire nation of providers and see how that impacts the care people receive from providers who see them as negligent, non-compliant, incapable, and unworthy.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            You’re correct on the assumption. I need data to support that but my perception is that people of less economic means tend to put off seeing a doctor before they are in need – as a proactive measure, regardless of race. I see that as a real factor as much as or more than the “bias” once they engage a doctor. Some doctors might be biased but most are not in my view and the ones that are might be biased against, for instance, those that do not see a doctor on a regular basis and show up later when things are going sideways. I don’t think teaching “implicit bias” per se really addresses all the factors, and it tends to select one to focus on and ignores the other factors. Why not do something that addresses all the factors and include “bias” as part of the overall and not give ammunition to folks who will use it to impugn the entire effort along race lines?

          4. Not Today Avatar

            You’re still basing your perceptions, which aren’t supported by data, on the misapprehension that low income people are choosing not to access healthcare otherwise available, affordable care vs understanding that there are systemic barriers in place that prevent and discourage early and proactive healthcare for low-wage and low-wealth ppl. One approach makes people the problem, an unsolvable one natch. The other makes systems the problem, ones that can be improved through policy and practice. Making people, behaving rationally within the system, the problem makes it inevitable that practitioners treat these unfixable humans poorly.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            Oh no, I’m well aware that folks who are thin on funds will put off seeing a doc. ACA and Medicaid have helped but actually finding a doc who will take you (and may still require co-pays) encourages folks to not do that. Docs don’t generally take responsibility for encouraging folks to get regular care. That’s on the patient. I just think other factors besides _just_ implicit bias are in play… and maybe you agree.

  6. We’re Doctors. Implicit Bias Training Has No Place in Medicine.

    Suck it up, doc. There’s no reason you shouldn’t have to be subjected to the same workplace “training” as the rest of us…

Leave a Reply