COM Outlook Winter 2020

In his editorial, Goldfarb describes these determi- nates, such as gun violence, the opioid epidemic, and climate change, as nothing more than “tangential” to the current and near-future health care landscape. He also describes such learning objectives as “politicized” curricula that serve little purpose, taking time and resources away from the basics of medical education. Goldfarb takes his argument one step further, arguing that teaching social components of health care competes for time spent learning basic scientific knowledge. This, he concludes, will result in fewer, less-competent medical specialists in fields of short supply, such as oncology, cardiology, and surgery. NO NEED TO CHOOSE I disagree. First, the contention that social issues should not be addressed in medical school lecture halls, and second, the notion that teaching social issues distracts from developing technically skilled, basic science-oriented physicians. Several responses to the editorial—including from current students as well as alumni of the Perelman School of Medicine—criticize the first claim. Therefore, I will focus on the latter. Goldfarb claims that a student-physician cannot invest time learning social factors that influence health care while also mastering the basic sciences, implying that learning one comes at the cost of understanding the other. Of note, the Journal of the American Medical Association conducted a social media survey after the op-ed was published asking if the statement “medical schools should produce physician-scientists, not physician social justice activists,” bears any merit. More than 16,000 people voted, and nearly 70 percent disagreed. I believe we are asking the wrong question. Advocacy and understanding the basic sciences are not mutually exclusive, and such a proposal introduces a false dichotomy. In other words, students should not feel pressured to choose social or basic sciences, because they are inherently and intimately related. EACH SUPPORTS THE OTHER The constructive and longstanding decisions we, as a society, make on social issues rely heavily on thorough, peer-review-supported research. Without the basic sciences and research, there is no scientific foundation for advocacy and policy, and without the corresponding legislation, there is no funding for research that enables us to understand the sciences altogether. Therefore, this begs the question: How could we ignore this pillar of medical care for our patients? If, as Goldfarb suggests, the time spent learning about social issues did take away from medical students’ basic science knowledge, then how does one explain the continuous rise in national board exam scores in recent years, both in basic scientific knowledge and in clinical skill? In response to recent criticisms, The Wall Street Journal editorial board doubled down, claiming, “Patients want an accurate diagnosis, not a lecture on social justice or climate change.” This reasoning, however, reduces the patient to a body rather than a person, and if medicine forgets that patients are people, it loses its humanity. o Jason D. Vadhan is a class of 2021 student. NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY | 39 “Students should not feel pressured to choose social or basic sciences because they are inherently and intimately related.” —JASON D. VADHAN + “If medicine forgets that patients are people, it loses its humanity.” —JASON D. VADHAN +