Booker Tease Washington: Democrat Senator Flirts With Possible 2028 Presidential Run
Middle Man: Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear Wants Voters to Know He’s Not the...
Irish Band U2 Release Song 'American Obituary' Honoring Renee Good
Detroit Police Officer and Sergeant Face Firing for Breaking Policy and Tipping Off...
America Owns Hockey: US Women Win OT Gold, Leave Canada Spiraling and Seething
Absentee Mom's Illegal Stay Leads to Daughter's Disney Visit Ending in 4-Month ICE...
Renee Good Memorial Burned in Fiery but Mostly Peaceful Incident
Absurd Tara Palmeri Goes Nuclear: Accuses Michael Tracey of Being Paid to Smear...
Wife of Illegal Who Killed Georgia Teacher Says What Happened, Happened
WaPo: Some Say Atlantic Story ‘Felt Misleading’ Once They Learned It Was Made...
Elmo Wishes Ramadan Mubarak to All of His Friends
Brian Stelter: ABC News Has Admirably Insulated The View From Equal Time Rules
China's 'Killer Robots' Terrify Americans on X — Until Everyone Realizes It's Just...
WaPo: Dancers Reenact Shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Front of...
Bodies Buried at Epstein Ranch? New Mexico Allegedly Opens Disturbing Probe

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