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.
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.
Proposed “Anti-racist agenda for medicine” means “offering preferential care based on race or ethnicity” in full awareness that it violates civil rights law and will “elicit legal challenges”, but in confidence that recent WH executive provides backing https://t.co/3lk4xsQJCF pic.twitter.com/Rf1MjVF1zt
— Wesley Yang (@wesyang) March 27, 2021
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.
Critical race theory driving health care decisions … what could go wrong?
This is the reason we have SCOTUS. ultimately they are going to have to save us from these unconstitutional proposals at the federal/state executive, legislative branches.
— Stuck in the Middle (@StucknDaMid) March 27, 2021
Spoiler Alert: SCOTUS rolls over and sells out.
— Caveman Deetz (@tahDeetz) March 27, 2021
Roberts will call it a tax and deem it hunky dory.
— Caveman Deetz (@tahDeetz) March 27, 2021
Lefties like me suddenly thankful for that conservative judicial majority that Trump left us with.
But that will only stem this tide for so long. We can all see that this thinking is now… structural.
— 𝚙𝚎𝚝𝚎 𝚋𝚛𝚊𝚢 (@petebray) March 27, 2021
You are now labeled as a right-wing extremist for posting this. (I agree with you btw).
— Chien Kwok⚔️ (@chien_kwok) March 27, 2021
I’m a law student writing a paper on this topic broadly. Private institutions pursuing explicitly racially preferential treatment as a corrective measure, quite possibly in violation of the Civil Rights Act. Very interested to see how this trend plays out in court.
— Chad Williams (@cawmsworx) March 27, 2021
The evidence does not show that our health system preferences anyone. That attributes false agency to inert data. Disparity in result does not imply deliberate discriminatory forces at play.
But now we know that proper triage is not based not need, but on race.
— Jordan Pettet (@PettetJordan) March 27, 2021
You must realize that disparity of result is the new definition of structural racism doesn’t matter if it’s origin is purposeful or not
— Kurt Harris MD 🇺🇸 (@radfugee) March 27, 2021
That crashing sound is the Hippocratic Oath being throw out the window.
— dougspencer (@dougbspencer) March 27, 2021
Two wrongs make one right. Another case of alternative math. One plus one is one.
— Uta Gröschel (@utagro) March 27, 2021
“Why do people have a problem with CRT it’s just academic anti racism, hell they can’t even define it!”
— JRP (@JRPSD) March 27, 2021
The effectiveness of reframing Affirmative Action and its derivatives as “corrective” instead of “advantageous” has revealed a level of societal gullibility I seem unable to stop myself from underestimating
— James Zimmermann (@jameszimmermann) March 27, 2021
This is what “equity not equality” was to lay the groundwork for.
— Michael Haze (@SubvisualHaze) March 27, 2021
They really want to escalate.
— The Last Mohican (@TheLastMohicans) March 27, 2021
As someone in healthcare, I refuse to be a racist and this is just racism. I will not discriminate based on any factor. I want to heal not practice politics. Every patient deserves appropriate care.
— Rae 🔥 (@FiatLuxGenesis) March 27, 2021
They’re calling it “medical restitution.”
— NH (@TwoQuoque) March 27, 2021
New England Journal of Medicine comes out against harmful sex designations on birth certificates https://t.co/mfVZGmWNZG
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) December 18, 2020