Aww, Wassamatta, BUBBA? Bill Clinton Ghosts House Oversight Deposition (Does NOT Sound Goo...
'May He Rest in Eternal Glory and Peace': Scott Adams Has Passed Away...
New Footage Showing Aftermath of MN Shooting Tells Us SO MUCH About Why...
'Temporary Means TEMPORARY': Trump Admin Done PLAYING With Fraud-Happy Somalis (Yeah, It J...
'DUMBEST Scrote in Hollywood' Mark Ruffalo Weeps About Trump TERRORIZING HIM As an...
Salena Zito DROPS Broken, Bitter Old Crank John Cleese For His Shameful Trump...
Parental Control: MS NOW’s Katy Tur Defends ‘Mother of Three’ Narrative by Invoking...
Invasion Inversion: Mayor Jacob Frey Says Federal Agents Are the Real Invaders, Not...
Stage and Scream: Hollywood Director Judd Apatow Says America Is Living Under a...
Congressman Proves There Is Such a Thing as a Stupid Question
Author of 'How Fascism Works' Says Trump Is Leading an Unlawful Takeover of...
Jacob Frey Asked ICE a Gotcha Question About Red States That BACKFIRED in...
'It's Worse Than You're Seeing': Liberal-leaning Developer Claims ICE Terror in MN, Gets...
David Frum: The Minneapolis Shooting Was a MAGA Version of a Third-World Honor...
Lieu vs. Reality: Congressman Slams ICE Shove, Gets Slammed Back for Ignoring Man...

Doctors advocate for 'a proactively antiracist agenda for medicine' even though offering preferential care based on race may elicit legal challenges

There’s an interesting piece in Boston Review in which two doctors, Bram Wispelwey and Michelle Morse, advocate for a “proactively antiracist agenda for medicine.” A study that showed disparities in referrals to the hospital’s cardiology service showed that “patient self-advocacy may play a role in these disparities: white patients were perceived to advocate for cardiology admission more often and more intensely, and providers acknowledged such behavior impacted their decision making.” “Alarmed by these findings, we sought an immediate solution,” they write.

Advertisement

That solution, they believe, is “a proactively antiracist agenda for medicine.” “Our path to this realization, as with nearly all advancements in social medicine, took us outside our discipline—through the field of critical race theory (CRT), in particular,” they say. “What effect would reparations have on systemic inequities in the health care system?” they ask.

That highlighted bit reads:

Offering preferential care based on race or ethnicity may elicit legal challenges from our system of colorblind law. But given the ample current evidence that our health, judicial, and other systems already unfairly preference people who are white, we believe—following the ethical framework of [philosopher Naomi] Zack and others—that our approach is corrective and therefore mandated. We encourage other institutions to proceed confidently on behalf of equity and racial justice, with backing provided by recent White House executive orders.

Advertisement

Critical race theory driving health care decisions … what could go wrong?

Advertisement

https://twitter.com/radfugee/status/1375902421096882176

Advertisement


Related:

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement