In his 1869 book The Subordination of Womeneconomist and political scientist John Stuart Mill wrote that “we have denied the idea of its existence but it is certainly known that there is a natural difference in the general power or understanding of the mental powers of the two sexes, much less that the difference exists.” Whatever the difference, the political results must still be what Mill envisioned.
The article is on The Economist suggests that perhaps women make better doctors than men. It cites several recent medical studies that conclude that female doctors have better medical outcomes in terms of patient survival and hospital readmissions (“Do Women Make Better Doctors Than Men? Research Suggests Yes,” August 7, 2024). The data included hundreds of thousands of medical records in Canada and the United States. The Economist notes that they were retrospective studies, less reliable than the randomized controlled type. It could be, for example, that the female doctors who were included in the study, for whatever reason, were assigned to very small cases, which could not be controlled in a study that randomly assigns doctors to patients.
But why is it important to know whether women or men are better doctors? The question seems odd, except perhaps for hospitals, clinics, and medical groups that, if discrimination were allowed by law, would be interested in hiring more skilled doctors—pushing female doctors’ salaries above their less efficient male counterparts. Since sexism is illegal in hiring (we will now say “sexism,” which has the advantage of avoiding the traditionally hated three-letter word, but I’ll stick to Mill’s terminology), there must be another reason why this question is on the research agenda.
In a free society, whether men or women are better doctors would have no philosophical or political implications, regardless of genetic or social causes. (If the perceived difference in productivity is set in the value of wages, it will have little business interest or since the values will provide sufficient information.) The question will be no more important than whether left-handed or right-handed doctors are better.
Now, it seems obvious, doesn’t it, that women are genetically more empathetic and caring than men. The Economist suggests that knowledge about the relative ability of men and women as doctors can help male doctors change what they don’t do well. However, one can imagine that the same type of study of other social groups—say, white versus black physicians or left-wing versus right-wing physicians—would be useful. Why not? Of course, such studies also strengthen the cage of group identity, but this should not be a contradiction of our intellectual organization that favors a group, apart from the fact that some groups are more popular than others.
I agree, of course, that whatever research question a person wants to investigate is their own business, although there is the issue of whether a researcher should force others to fund their research. I’ve discussed this issue in a few previous EconLog posts–for example, about how fake scholarly journals are aided by government funding of higher education. Freedom of research is the only way to know, as far as possible, that no important question has been overlooked.
Given the zeitgeist of our time, we might wonder if studies on the effectiveness of male and female physicians would have been published if they had found that male physicians were better. Or maybe such studies were buried in professional and academic magazines? Think of a newspaper headline that says, “Government-Sponsored Study Says Men Are Better Doctors Than Women”! Mrs. Grundy (whose vision kept up with the times) would turn in her grave. In this area as in others, the free market of ideas is essential to the search for truth.
Let’s go back to John Stuart Mill and how he justified this legal women’s freedom to compete with men in all jobs, a more enlightened way than compelling which we are used to now. In The Subordination of Womenas I have written before on this blog, Mill argued that the emancipation of women would benefit everyone in society (or, if we could say, it would satisfy the general laws that benefit everyone) by allowing each person to contribute to the activities they do. he did very well. Mill viewed discrimination against women as dangerous or excessive. It was dangerous if it prevented women from competing and proving themselves better than their male counterparts. It was inappropriate if women could not or would not compete in certain occupations or occupations—garbage collectors. Mill saw no reason to prevent women, especially those with discriminatory laws, from competing in any field of work, but there was no reason for the government to help them either. What matters is the legal freedom of competition, whatever the outcome, whoever proves to be better at responding to market preferences.
******************************
Those who have experienced DALL-E will understand my frustration. The picture was supposed to show male and female doctors on each side of the wall. But the bot didn’t understand. For over an hour (for example), I tried to replace the female doctor with a male doctor, or at least replace the female head with a male one. I tried to teach the robot the secrets of life and the basics of anatomy. I finally gave up. Here’s the picture, in all its robotic imperfection.
Source link