new england journal of medicine

New York just legalized assisted suicide. Adding insult to injury, the law requires morally or religiously objecting doctors to be complicit in assisted suicides by cooperating with some of its provisions. Specifically, the Medical Aid in Dying Act requires that the “attending physician” of patients requesting assisted suicide perform specified functions before patients can be prescribed lethal substances, with no apparent opt-out in the law that I could discern for physicians who are morally or religiously opposed to such a request. These mandatory actions include examining the patient to determine whether the illness is terminal, referring the patient to a consulting doctor to approve the assisted suicide, and discussing the “potential risks associated with taking the medication” (among others), the Read More ›

A pro-illegal immigrant advocacy article in the New England Journal of Medicine urges doctors to protect undocumented patients by impeding law enforcement in the context of the physician/patient relationship.

First, the authors complain that enforcing immigration law has engendered an environment of fear:

The current climate echoes that surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic, when fears of surveillance, deportation, and the effects of new public-charge policies drove immigrant communities to avoid necessary care, which led to increased morbidity and mortality. As erosion of trust in institutions again drives patients away from clinics, confronting their needless suffering also exacts a toll on physicians, who may experience moral distress, feeling complicit in a system that’s failing marginalized groups. [Citations omitted.]

The legalization of assisted suicide/euthanasia corrupts medical ethics and not just because killing patients or assisting their suicides is a direct violation of the Hippocratic oath. No: Transforming sick and disabled people into a killable caste also objectifies them as potential natural resources to be mined or harvested.

Hastened death and organ-harvesting have already been conjoined in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, the Netherlands, and Belgium. (In the latter two countries, some cases have involved mentally ill patients.) The practice has been supported in prominent medical journals. It is not alarmism to note that the idea is gaining ever wider acceptance among the medical and bioethics intelligentsia.

But killing and then harvesting doesn’t go far enough for some mainstream bioethicists. Where euthanasia is legal, they don’t see why organ procurement can’t also be the means of death for patients who want to donate. In other words, don’t just kill and then harvest; harvest to kill.

The usual suspect medical and science journals have featured far fewer columns promoting progressive politics of late. Alas, it couldn’t last forever. The New England Journal of Medicine just published two opinion articles decrying immigration enforcement as inimical to public health.

The first column focuses generally on the adversity the author believes is caused to illegal immigrant communities by enforcing the law:

Current immigration enforcement is disrupting medical follow-up, exacerbating mental health symptoms, causing more patients to skip preventive care, and deepening mistrust in public institutions. In my clinical practice, I have seen sharp increases in anxiety, school absenteeism, deferred visits, and acute psychiatric symptoms after enforcement events. These effects are both predictable and preventable. Clinicians, health systems, and policymakers should recognize immigration enforcement as a social determinant of health currently implicated in a public health crisis and act accordingly. [Citations omitted.]

In other words, don’t enforce the law.

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 ›