Climate warriors are colonizing medicine – is it worth it?

From the Daily Skeptic

go through I am a bunch

This week, the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) released a “Green Physician's Toolkit”. The kit, from what is probably the world's oldest professional organization, founded under a royal charter in the early 16th century, prompted a flurry of skeptical comments. Controversy arose over the fact that the toolkit also advised doctors to “reduce unnecessary prescribing” and “limit diagnostic activity”, in addition to recommendations to protect the planet such as “reduce waste” and “limit the environmental impact of travel.” Journalists have been asking whether the RCP is asking doctors to prioritize green ideology over care. But even worse, the kit is evidence that a deadly virus is spreading in professional settings. This virulent pathogen erodes professional standards and ethics and undermines the founding principles of institutions.

The idea of ​​providing doctors with a climate “toolkit” may sound familiar. That's because this isn't a new idea. Earlier this year, the World Health Organization released the exact same thing – a “toolkit” which it claims “aims to provide health and care workers with the knowledge and confidence to communicate effectively about climate change and health issues”. But the toolkit appears to be more suitable for GCSE students rather than those with advanced degrees in medicine. The WHO letter is clichéd, condescending, superficial in detail, substituting conjecture for fact and a proselytizing injunction—a sacred green order. It now appears that the RCP has implemented the WHO order.

There is nothing more to say about RCP replication that is not already mentioned in the WHO toolkit itself. Suffice to say, if a doctor performs too many diagnostic tests, or prescribes medications unnecessarily, then these are problems in themselves, and a doctor's first and only responsibility is the health of the patient, not the “health” of the planet, the “health of the planet” Health” should be of no concern to doctors and nurses and their managers. The tension between these two putative beneficiaries of the clinicians' work illustrates the opposition that environmentalism proposes between “nature” and humans. From a green perspective, industrial and economic development has undoubtedly improved living standards, but it is unsustainable at the current rate. The greater good can only be achieved by limiting or reversing this development. This will inevitably have an impact on human well-being. In other words, the WHO and RCP toolkit is really a green utilitarian “greater good” ban that starts rationing medicines for the benefit of Gaia. This tension is difficult to overcome.

here about daily skeptic, our in-house doctors suggest that most doctors will simply ignore the RCP kit. But the danger, he added, is that only a handful of managers, and perhaps those with clinical expertise, take the work of the WHO and RCP at face value and are likely to exercise control over institutions. The doctor noted that the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP2) and the British Medical Council (GMC) have already introduced climate interventions. This issue must be taken seriously: Physicians cannot challenge institutional captors simply by ignoring the cultish behavior of colleagues. RCP2 and GMC are not the only medical institutions currently affiliated with Green Blob.

Founded in 1823, lancet It is another British medical institution. Although it is privately owned, it is a prestigious weekly magazine that publishes research and commentary on a range of public policies, sometimes very loosely related to medicine. According to its editor Richard Horton, “the climate emergency we face today is the most important existential crisis facing humanity”. Of course, this is nonsense. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has no scientific evidence to support the claim that climate change is an “existential crisis,” let alone evidence of how the crisis compares to other risk factors. For example, even the RCP’s toolkit states that globally, climate change “is expected to [by the IPCC] By 2050, it will cause more than 250,000 deaths each year.” With 250,000 people dying every year, it's certainly nothing to get tired of. But how does it compare to other risk factors on a global scale? Death risk data compiled by Oxford University Our world of data The website puts that number into perspective.

The IPCC itself says that by 2050, annual deaths will be caused by “heat, malnutrition, malaria and diarrheal diseases”. Holden is dead wrong. How wrong. The IPCC itself may also be wrong. Deaths from malaria are half what they were in the early 2000s and more than three times lower than the IPCC estimate of climate-related deaths in 2050. people. In 1980, 778,091 people died from nutritional deficiencies. One could make the argument that while climate change may have a negative impact on such grim statistics, the death toll from climate change's N-level impacts is a low-level consequence of poverty. Solve poverty—a “problem” that is easier to understand and solve than climate change—and the “existential threat” of climate change will disappear.

But is Holden interested in the facts, or does the concept of “existential threat” serve another purpose? Horton went on to claim that “since medicine is about protecting and enhancing human beings, it should be the absolute foundation of what we do every day” and therefore “doctors and all health professionals have responsibilities and obligations”. obligations to address the climate emergency”. If Horton were truly interested in human well-being rather than ideological partisanship, he would surely commission research showing how progress in ending poverty in developing and emerging economies relies on fossil fuels — including that of half the world's population Synthetic fertilizer, produced from natural gas. But on the contrary, lancet Generate a file called “lancet Countdown highlights false, misleading and unscientific claims to influence political decision-making rather than inform broader public debate.

Another prestigious organization is the British Medical Association (BMA), a doctors' union founded in the early 19th century that also publishes a weekly magazine: british medical journal (british medical journal). BMA and british medical journalIt has also been quite a journey from its founding mission to green ideological activism. In 2016, the two organizations helped establish the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change (UKHACC), which consists of 48 member organizations in the healthcare field, including the Society of Anesthetists, the British Dental Association, and the Pediatric Intensive Care Society.

UKHACC, although almost a decade old and based at the BMA's address in London's Tavistock Square, recently became a charity but has unashamedly explained its purpose as political lobbying. It issued a manifesto in the run-up to the 2024 UK general election, making clear its intention to “influence policymakers to strengthen policies to tackle the climate and ecological crisis”, among other equally questionable things. When the General Medical Council's (GMC) Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service suspended Stop Oil protester Dr Sarah Benn following a criminal prosecution, UKHACC lobbied the GMC to “avoid standing on the side of history” “wrong side”. UKHACC does not seem to believe that doctors should face any consequences for criminal behaviour, despite their privileged and respected position in society.

But how do the doctors, nurses, dentists and other healthcare professionals who make up the 48 associations that make up UKHACC members feel about their representative organizations' commitment to this political campaign group? Did you vote? Is there an argument? What happens if members of the BMA itself or members of UKHACC want to disagree? UKHACC claims to be “a coalition of UK health organizations representing around 1 million health professionals”, providing “leadership and amplifying the voices of health professionals”. But what is the essence of this association?

With no debate, no vote, and apparently no thought, this “league” looks less like a league of people with expertise and more like the Midwich Cuckoos – maybe Midwit Cuckolds. The ease with which so many professional organizations align themselves should make us suspicious.

The purpose of professional associations, whether teachers, lawyers, architects or clinicians – who are all caught up in the climate war – is certainly to repay and ensure society’s trust in these professionals. They are so good that these peer autonomous organizations hold them to a higher standard. But when we look closely at work, e.g. lancet and its editors, we found extremely harsh language and unscientific claims where expertise was required. Back in 2020, I asked Horton to explain how he determined climate change to be “the most important existential crisis” compared to other mortality risks. Didn't get any answers. I also exchanged opinions with the defense physician lancet, RCP and UKHACC interventions. Their response was invariably to call me a “denier.” Well, their opinion is no more validating than that of a guy in a bar. He also had a didgeridoo and a dog on a leash, made worse by drinking so much cider and ketamine.

Therefore, the purpose of professional associations seems not to enforce standards but to lower the standards expected of “professionals.” These associations cease to be vehicles for holding peers accountable and putting industry reputation above all else, and instead become mechanisms for enforcing political dogma. Professional associations like the RCP now aim, in part, to capitalize on the public's trust in medical professionals, making green claims more likely to be believed. This is far from their original scientific spirit.

This infection is Anomie – “Instability resulting from a breakdown in standards and values ​​or a lack of purpose or ideals”. Only doctors—those who have not yet been infected—can stop the spread. But ignoring it and hoping it gets better won't stop it. The Doctors must form their own new society to prove that being a Doctor is enough, and the desire to become a superhero who saves the planet threatens to undermine the promise the Doctors made: to make the Doctor a Doctor again. Doctors, heal yourselves!

related