Posted on 02/17/2022 6:58:12 PM PST by buckalfa
"An Antiracist Agenda for Medicine," published by Boston Review on March 17, 2021, lays out a path for healthcare organizations to build a proactively antiracist agenda for medicine. The article has been highly controversial among the American public.
The article is penned by Bram Wispelwey, MD, associate physician in the Division of Global Health Equity at Boston-based Brigham and Women's Hospital, instructor in medicine at Boston-based Harvard Medical School, senior fellow at Atlantic Fellows for Health Equity, co-founder and chief strategist of Health for Palestine, and senior project lead in Partners In Health's U.S. Public Health Accompaniment Unit; and Michelle Morse, MD, deputy commissioner for the Center for Health Equity and Community Wellness, first chief medical officer at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, co-founder of EqualHealth and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School.
The physicians examined 10 years of data at Brigham and Women's and found Black and Latinx patients were less likely than white patients to be admitted to cardiology service, which was tied to better overall outcomes. The two physicians, along with a coalition of fellow practitioners and hospital leaders, developed what they aim to be a replicable pilot program that directly addresses racial healthcare inequities. The program, called "The Healing ARC," is based around a reparations framework from William Darity, PhD, researcher and economist at Duke University.
Below are the three steps of "The Healing ARC":
1. Acknowledgment
Providers must acknowledge how racism has contributed to unequal health outcomes. At Brigham and Women's, providers inform patients about the heart failure findings, claiming responsibility and incorporating community ideas for redress.
2. Redress
Healthcare institutions should redress damage by providing restitution to the harmed population while also offering pathways for access to services and care that have historically been denied. Redress could take multiple forms, from cash transfers and discounted or free care to taxes on nonprofit hospitals that exclude patients of color and race-explicit protocol changes.
Drs. Morse and Wispelwey have taken redress to mean providing what was denied for at least a decade: a preferential admission option for Black and Latinx heart failure patients to Brigham and Women's specialty cardiology service. The Healing ARC includes a flag in the EHR and admissions system suggesting providers admit Black and Latinx heart failure patients to cardiology, rather than rely on provider discretion or patient self-advocacy. The institution is currently analyzing the approach to see how well it generates equitable admissions.
Offering preferential care based on race or ethnicity may elicit legal challenges, the authors wrote. However, they said ample current evidence shows the U.S. health, judicial and other systems already unfairly preference people who are white, and they believe the approach is corrective and therefore necessary.
3. Closure
The community, patient stakeholders and institutional representatives must agree the institutional debt has been paid, and that a new system is in place to ensure the problem won't reemerge.
The article has been the source of much controversy and backlash, according to a Feb. 16 report from The New England Journal of Medicine. Some media mischaracterized tenets of race-conscious medicine, "claiming that efforts to overcome inequities would result in white people being denied medical care," the article's authors write.
On Jan. 22, 2022, neo-Nazis protested at Brigham and Women's Hospital with a banner that said the hospital "kills whites" and flyers with pictures of Dr. Morse, a Black woman, and Dr. Wispelwey, a white man. The group denounced the physicians and hospital for "creating preferential healthcare treatment policies for non-white patients," according to NEJM.
Their brand of “antiracism” is racism.
Antiracism = Anti-White
“Taxes on nonprofit hospitals that exclude patients of color”
Where would those hospitals be, since that is illegal??
I would bet what they mean is they would LIKE to do a wealth transfer from hospitals in red states to blue states in the name of “equity.”
Bkmk
More than one race can play this game, you udiots
IDIOTS
America in 2022: A Nation in Awash in Over-Titled Under-Achievers.
Only one solution to this racial dystopia we’re living in - SEPARATION.
Let each race go their own way and determine its destiny.
As it stands, the dynamics are such that things are only going to get worse. Blacks will continue to milk their victimhood privilege for all it’s worth, demands will only get more shrill as they become even less responsible. Whites will continue to knuckle under and give in to the demands and self-flagellate themselves in droves in the vain attempt to relieve themselves of the sins they didn’t commit.
Do you agree?
Nope...I don’t believe all blacks are the same, like whites, asians, mexicans, etc. Aren’t the same. It’s about morals. Would you separate from Clarence Thomas? Candace Owens?
Separating the left from the right, maybe. An all-White state is no guarantee of sanity. Look at Vermont, which has virtually no non-Whites. They vote like a bad neighborhood in Chicago. Let stupid, gullible Whites and other self-loathing racial groups congregate together and destroy themselves. Godless totalitarian Stalinazis of all colors should live in their own dystopian hellhole far away from the rest of us normals.
I’m sure Hamas just loves hair boy!
Yes I agree. The ideal of equality in the Declaration has been perverted to equity, thus ensuring endless class struggles.
“Nope...I don’t believe all blacks are the same, like whites, asians, mexicans, etc.”
That is correct, but you’re making a straw man argument.
Of course there are wonderful people of every race, but what counts is what the “AVERAGE” person of a particular race is like, ie, what hundred of years of interactions with the various races has revealed.
For example, let’s say you have two groups of people who on AVERAGE have significantly different IQ’s, AND whose members are easily identifiable as belonging to one or the other group. Assuming there is absolutely no discrimination and people are rewarded strictly on the basis of merit, which group do you think will end up with the most menial jobs? Which group of students will end up performing poorly?
And what do you think will be the reaction of the group who are at the bottom rung of the ladder? Will they not strongly resent their low position on the totem pole? Will they not question the fairness of the system, after all the constitution says “we’re all created equal”. Will they not demand that the other group addresses and fix their grievances? Will not all the “compassionate” easily guilted do-gooders of the better performing group sympathize with the plight of the other group and submit to every one of their demands?
Is this not the state we find ourselves in?
“Separating the left from the right, maybe. An all-White state is no guarantee of sanity. Look at Vermont, which has virtually no non-Whites.”
Yes value system differences are also a fault line in the peaceful coexistence of a society. Differences in religion being a prime example.
And Vermont is a great example of the benefits of NOT having too many differences in a society either racially or philosophically - an all white, overwhelmingly liberal state where people coexist very peacefully. Same with Scandinavian countries.
For a long time Utah, Idaho and other western states were examples of overwhelmingly white but CONSERVATIVE societies who also lived in blissful harmony. That has started to change with changes in demography.
And I’m sure Africa had many countries or tribes that had peaceful coexistence.
So if you want live rather peacefully, a more homogeneous population is the way to go.
That though can have some drawbacks in that it may become too stagnant and boring. So having a bit of “irritants” or diversity of thought can help a society progress.
After all, it does take the irritation of a grain of sand to make a pearl.
So a bit of stimulation is fine and desirable. Too much can lead to a miserable life.
I think in this country we’ve reached the point of having way too much.
Do you agree?
As I said, I’d prefer to keep a nation open to those that share similar ideals and values. If you come here to pervert them, roll up the welcome mat. At the moment, however, we need at least a 20-year moratorium on legal immigration to begin to assimilate them, perhaps longer. But there’s a whole laundry list of problems that need addressing.
“Global Health Equity”
aka White Genocide
We need to start treating anti-white racism as racism.
That would be racist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.