In a bold move, a coalition of California doctors, joined by the prominent anti-discrimination group Do No Harm, has ignited a legal firestorm by filing a lawsuit against the state’s contentious mandate for implicit bias training among physicians. The crux of their argument? This mandatory training appears to endorse the notion that “white individuals are naturally racist,” a perspective that has raised eyebrows and sparked vigorous debate.
California’s mandated implicit bias training ruins patient trust in their medical providers and leads to worse health outcomes for the very people it’s supposed to help.
It's time to reject these trainings in California––and across the nation. https://t.co/Rzi7j5KYOc
— Do No Harm (@donoharm) August 1, 2023
The battleground centers around Assembly Bill 241 (AB 241), a legislative measure that sailed through California’s corridors of power back in 2019. This bill mandates that all continuing medical education (CME) courses must incorporate implicit bias training. The intent is noble – addressing potential biases that may inadvertently affect medical care – but the implementation has ignited a passionate dispute.
The heart of the issue lies in the sheer volume of CME hours required annually to retain a medical license. A staggering 50 hours per year must be devoted to these courses, meaning medical professionals must now make room for implicit bias training in an already packed schedule. Critics argue that this forces practitioners to expend valuable time on content that might not be directly applicable to their specialties, potentially diverting their focus from essential medical knowledge.
Central to the lawsuit is a case titled Azadeh Khatibi, et al. v. Kristina Lawson, et. al, an endeavor that was initiated by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) on behalf of Dr. Azadeh Khatibi. Dr. Khatibi, herself an ophthalmology specialist with a personal history of immigrating to the United States from Iran at a young age, stands at the forefront of this legal tussle. Not only does she offer her expertise in ophthalmology, but she also serves as a CME instructor.
Dr. Khatibi’s motivation for taking this legal route is crystal clear: she is fiercely determined to prevent being coerced into integrating discussions on implicit bias into her courses. According to the foundation’s complaint, Dr. Khatibi asserts that such discussions hold little relevance to her field of expertise. Instead, she contends that other topics could wield greater significance in minimizing treatment outcome disparities – an issue that resonates deeply with her.
As the legal proceedings unfold, this clash of principles sheds light on a broader question: Should the medical community be mandated to embrace certain beliefs or theories, even if they raise legitimate concerns? This legal battle also underscores the delicate balance between striving for equality and preserving the autonomy and expertise of medical professionals.
The courtroom showdown continues, pitting the mandated training requirements against the professional convictions of dedicated physicians like Dr. Khatibi. The outcome of this lawsuit will undoubtedly send reverberations throughout the medical landscape, potentially reshaping the way implicit bias training is approached and integrated.
Stay tuned as we closely follow this legal saga, where the stakes are high and the implications are far-reaching. The verdict in Azadeh Khatibi, et al. v. Kristina Lawson, et. al could herald a pivotal moment in the ongoing dialogue surrounding implicit bias training and the autonomy of medical practitioners.