WATCH: Donald Trump Turns Over Mic to North Carolinians STILL Suffering From Hurricane...
Shocking Rumor Circulating Senator Thom Tillis is a 'NO' on Hegseth Possibly Sinking...
Not HIS Problem: Gavin Newsom Blames Trump for Pointing Out California's Self-Inflicted Wa...
More Winning: Trump Administration Shuts Down Biden's Fake 'Banned Books' Investigations
Follow the Money: RandoLand Exposes Why Catholic Bishops REALLY Oppose Trump's Immigration...
Case Dropped Against Whistleblowing Doctor Who Exposed Texas Hospital Performing Child Sex...
'No One Should Show Him Dignity': Ilhan Omar LASHES OUT at Fellow Democrats...
Melania Returns: Nation Desperate to Escape First Lady Jill's Floral Faux Pas Fiasco...
Oh, So It's TROLLING Now? Vox Tries, Fails to Shift Media Narrative on...
On Their Own: Trump Revokes Taxpayer-Funded Security for Millionaires Dr. Fauci and John...
Nah, We're Good: Hack Don Lemon Thinks Matt Lauer Can Make a Comeback...
Federal Employees Need to GROW UP About Trump's 'Return to Work' Order ......
AP Framing of Target Stores Ending DEI Initiatives Is Why They're Called 'Associated...
'Because It Was Bulls**t': Axios Doesn't Understand How Musk, Tesla Remain 'Bulletproof' F...
Rashida Tlaib Offers 'Solution' to Expensive Grocery Prices That'll Just Make Things Cost...

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