new england journal of medicine

The New England Journal of Medicine continues to besmirch its once august reputation by pushing ideology rather than medical science when discussing our nation’s most contentious social issues. This is particularly true about so-called gender-affirming care for minors experiencing gender confusion. Even as repeated medical studies undercut the ideological narrative that puberty blockers, hormones, and even surgeries are the best means of caring for dysphoric children — and as country after country severely restricted those interventions — (with the exception of an unsubstantive criticism of the Cass Review) articles in the NEJM on the question usually pretend that the pushback never happened.

Now, the editors have done it again, publishing an article by Scott Skinner-Thompson, an LGBT activist law professor from the University of Colorado, Boulder, criticizing the Supreme Court for allowing Tennessee to legally prevent such interventions in children. The pretense begins with the headline, “The Faulty Logic behind the Supreme Court’s Failure to Protect Trans Minors.” To the contrary, Tennessee and other jurisdictions that have enacted such laws have done so to protect trans minors from potentially irreversible harm, in the knowledge that most gender dysphoric minors overcome their confusion by the time they reach adulthood.

Then, Skinner-Thompson leans on clearly ideological opinions by medical associations, despite at least one of which (WPATH) having been substantively discredited:

On June 18, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming hormonal treatment for transgender minors against an Equal Protection Clause challenge in United States v. Skrmetti. Transgender adolescents who need these medical interventions but live in one of the many states that ban them may need to look elsewhere for care. Nearly every major relevant U.S. health care organization has concluded that the prescription of hormones and puberty blockers for treating gender dysphoria in transgender adolescents is often medically appropriate in that it can improve mental health and well-being, whereas untreated gender dysphoria can lead to depression, anxiety, and suicidality.

The New England Journal of Medicine is at it again. It just published a dire warning that deporting illegal aliens will hobble our healthcare system. First, the authors give a dubious example of the kind of calamity that will supposedly happen to our most vulnerable patients without illegal immigrant workers. From, “Who Will Care for America?“: As physicians, we have witnessed firsthand the harms that such policies pose to patients and health care workers alike. In one case we know of, an older patient with metastatic cancer fell at home and lay on the floor for days before being found by a family member; he died shortly after being admitted to a local hospital. Though it’s uncertain whether he would Read More ›

“Futile care” is a bioethics theory in which doctors are authorized to refuse wanted life-sustaining treatment based on their belief about the quality of a patient’s life. It can be cruel — and on occasion, mistaken. Prominent medical journals usually support futile-care theory. But the New England Journal of Medicine just published a contrary column by a compassionate doctor who rejected that approach in order to keep hope alive for his terminally ill patient and her family. The oncologist, Dr. David N. Korones, placed a young terminally ill cancer patient named Zoha in an experimental drug trial. At first all seemed well, then her condition worsened. From, “The Last Dose”: Although the rules of the trial allowed Zoha to remain Read More ›

The editors of medical journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet are ruining the once venerable reputations of their publications by continually publishing hard-left-wing polemics about controversial political issues — such as race relations, gun regulation, and climate change — in the guise of deeming them matters of public health.

These woke publications also repeatedly advocate about highly contestable health issues from the progressive side — such as insisting that so-called gender-affirming care is medically necessary and the scientifically settled means of treating gender-confused children.

Political and cultural advocacy in these publications is sometimes so strident that editors seem almost more invested in ideological advocacy and promoting woke narratives than publishing scientifically enlightening papers. That’s self-destructive because it corrodes trust in the objectivity and expertise of the publications and calls into question whether well-documented papers that cut against the ideological grain would be published at all.

The New England Journal of Medicine is pushing progressive politics in the guise of protecting health, again, this time publishing an article that attacks the fossil fuel industry. From, “Clearing the Smoke on Fossil Fuels — The Health Imperative for a Countermarketing Campaign”:

International Energy Agency analyses show that expected growth in global electricity demand can be met without any new fossil-fuel extraction; a recent comprehensive analysis concludes that there is a “large consensus” across all published studies that developing new oil and gas fields is “incompatible” with the target established by the Paris Agreement of limiting global warming to a maximum of 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. But the fossil-fuel industry continues its reckless expansion of oil and gas extraction and production.

No, sufficient energy can’t be generated without fossil fuels — especially without a massive switch to nuclear power — and that problem may be intractable. Most renewable energy methods favored by the green crowd are weather-dependent. If the wind doesn’t blow, windmills don’t turn. If the sun doesn’t come out, solar energy generation is reduced. The Germans have even coined a word for the energy crisis caused there by this phenomenon: dunkelflaute, or “dark doldrum.”

As many Western countries reverse their former embrace of so-called “gender-affirming care” as it applies to children, the American medical establishment has obstinately pretended that puberty blockers and transition surgeries are medically uncontroversial. The latest example: An advocacy article published in the February 12, 2025 New England Journal of Medicine — yet again — decrying laws passed to protect children from transition interventions. From “Advancing Transgender Health amid Rising Policy Threats” (citations omitted): Gender-affirming care is a cornerstone of multidisciplinary health support for transgender and nonbinary people; it is widely recognized as essential, evidence based, and often lifesaving. The standards of care issued by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health emphasize the critical role of interventions such as pubertal Read More ›

No matter election outcomes, presidential executive orders, and the ebbing support for the “woke” agenda among the general public, the medical establishment — epitomized by the New England Journal of Medicine — continues to push DEI ideology in medical school admissions policies. A recent advocacy article in the NEJM pledges fervid fealty to DEI, primarily focusing on gender ideology. From, “Facing Political Attacks on Medical Education — The Future of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Medicine” (citations omitted): In recent years, the United States has seen an onslaught of legislation aimed at dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in higher education, including medical education. Although these legislative actions are often construed as focusing only on race, they also explicitly or implicitly target members of Read More ›

The American medical establishment remains radically committed to the misnamed “gender-affirming care” model, refusing to even consider following the examples of the U.K., Sweden, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, France, Norway, and others whose health ministries have hit the brakes hard on providing puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries to gender dysphoric children.

Example: The current New England Journal of Medicine published a “Perspectives” screed attacking the Cass Review — widely respected for its thorough investigation of the lack of significant data supporting puberty blocking of gender dysphoric children. From “The Future of Gender Affirming Care“:

Our concern here is that the Review transgresses medical law, policy, and practice, which puts it at odds with all mainstream U.S. expert guidelines. The report deviates from pharmaceutical regulatory standards in the United Kingdom. And if it had been published in the United States, where it has been invoked frequently, it would have violated federal law because the authors failed to adhere to legal requirements protecting the integrity of the scientific process.

Fresh off publishing an unsubstantial attack on the Cass Review that recommended against puberty blockers for gender dysphoric youth, the New England Journal of Medicine offers an advocacy piece demanding that prisoners claiming to be transgender be given free “transition surgeries.” From “Gender-Affirming Surgical Care in Carceral Settings“: Several U.S. courts have held that access to gender-affirming care during incarceration is a trans person’s right. This conclusion is reflected in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) clinical guidance, which governs clinical care provision within federal carceral facilities, which house an estimated 1200 trans people. The BOP, whose guidance often sets the standard for health care delivery in state and local carceral facilities, recommends provision of gender-affirming care during incarceration, including Read More ›

The latest New England Journal of Medicine contains two advocacy articles that essentially argue that the country should provide health care for illegal immigrants, no questions asked. The first, discusses the 1.1 million elderly people with no legal right to be here, who as a result, do not qualify for Medicare or federal Medicaid funding, which the authors call “dual ineligibility.” The article argues that these illegal residents should be covered by Medicare if they paid taxes, but realizing that is a political nonstarter, urge a combination of strategies. These range from states authorizing payments under Medicaid, to funding community health centers, to illegal elders being covered by their legal adult children’s health insurance. But what the authors really want Read More ›