It is difficult to overstate the achievements of Richard Clarke Cabot (1868-1939) a relatively little-known, old-moneyed physician of the early 20th century who was far ahead of his time in how much he contributed, and how willing he was to question his own limitations.

Cabot's achievements include: creation and self-funding of the first medical social work service and establishment of the fields of clinical pastoral care and medical ethics. His work offered seminal contributions to the fields of hematology, cardiology, infectious disease, and medical education – including the clinical pathologic conference, case-based learning and the differential diagnosis; the first large-scale randomized experiment in the history of criminology; the science of medical error; and introducing the concept of a group insurance plan. He authored countless books, articles and textbooks.

Most remarkable, considering Cabot's extraordinary intellect, was his openness to reflecting on his own deficits as a physician, including getting diagnoses wrong, and describing his own failures in seeing the humanity of his patients.

Joy, curiosity, and generosity were among his distinctive personal characteristics.

So, why is he not more widely remembered? Perhaps because of one of his greatest attributes: he pointed out things about his profession that the medical establishment didn’t want to hear.

In an April 23rd executive order (EO), the president of the United States alleges that the Liaison Committee for Medical Education (LCME) and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) are requiring medical schools and residency programs to pursue unlawful discrimination through DEI policies. The EO calls for the US Department of Education to “assess whether to suspend or terminate” them, and to “streamline the process” for recognizing new accreditors to replace them.

In addition, medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, are getting letters from a US Attorney, calling them “partisans in various scientific debates,” and requesting information.

As a follow up to our last episode on authoritarianism and its implications for the medical profession, we consider these new developments from two perspectives: On the one hand we look for evidence to support the government’s claims; and, on the other, we consider how they fit into the authoritarian’s playbook of capitalizing on polarization to breakdown civil society and consolidate power.

There are things physicians and other health professionals can and should be doing now – and we propose a few -- to protect our profession from an authoritarian incursion that threatens our commitment so scientific integrity, and to a medical education system that, however imperfect, is informed by expert knowledge and professional values.

The record of physicians standing up for their values as healers under authoritarian regimes is not good, whether it’s Nazi Germany, the former Soviet Union, or Iraq, with behaviors ranging from assisting in torture, to psychiatric hospitalization for political reasons. And sadly, it’s often without any coercion.

More subtly, physicians may go along with authoritarian regimes' demands, thinking they can just "stay above the fray." But is that possible? Already, other professional institutions, including academia and law, have struck deals in the hope they they can move on, rather than defend academic freedom or long-standing legal principles.

What’s in store for medicine? Some might say “not much” -- physicians must simply continue to take good care of their patients. But some are already acceding to orders to abandon care to certain populations, including trans people and refugees; or to compromise privacy. And professional organizations are saying little about looming cuts that would curtail access to care for millions of Americans.

One scholar of authoritarianism, Timothy Snyder has written, “When political leaders set a negative example, professional commitments to just practice become more important. Authoritarians need obedient servants.”

In this episode, two physicians wrestle with what those commitments are, and how we hold on to them.