One linked article is misleadingly titled “Heart Failure Admission Service Triage (H-FAST) Study: Racialized Differences in Perceived Patient Self-Advocacy as a Driver of Admission Inequities.” Its concluding section begins by noting: “Theorized drivers of racial inequities in admission service did not reach statistical significance.” In other words, the article linked by the authors does not provide significant statistical evidence of racial differences in treatment. ![]() In fact, the data linked by the authors to their article does not support their argument. More broadly, they assert that the disparities they observed, so-called “health inequities,” were not “fully accounted for by insurance status, established links to care, other medical conditions, or an index reflecting the socioeconomic status of a patient’s neighborhood.” They then attempt to justify their attack on the Civil Rights Act by asserting the existence of “ample current evidence that our health, judicial, and other systems already unfairly preference people who are white,” and that “our approach is corrective and therefore mandated.”Īs evidence, Wispelwey and Morse present their observation that “white patients at Brigham and Women’s Hospital … were indeed more likely to be admitted to the cardiology service” than black patients. “Offering preferential care based on race or ethnicity may elicit legal challenges from our system of colorblind law,” they write. According to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity,” including “education, health care, housing, social services.” The bill was passed during an upsurge of the working class in the US in the 1960s, which had as one of its principles the ending of official discrimination along racial lines, including in health care.īoth authors are aware of the illegality of their proposal. It must be stated from the outset that not only is such a racially-based program medically unethical, it is illegal. The program would offer “preferential care based on race” and “race-explicit interventions,” according to Wispelwey and Morse. Sinai hospital in New York on Monday, March, 22, 2021. Sandy Florman during a checkup visit at Mt. The issues discussed include compensation, liability, victimization, the significance of group membership, the intrinsic importance of racial, sexual, or meritocratic criteria, and the overall effects of preferential policies.Trachea transplant recipient Sonia Sein talks with the lead surgeon of her procedure, Dr. ![]() The two groups of essays demonstrate admirably the close connection between moral philosophy and questions of law and policy. The discussions in Part II also take up theoretical questions, but they start from specific problems about the constitutionality and the effectiveness of certain methods of achieving equality and counteracting discrimination. The discussions in Part I are more theoretical and concentrate on the application to this case of general considerations from ethical theory. If the situation of women and minorities improves so that their opportunities are equal to those of more favored groups, will they then be in a competitive position conducive to equal achievement? If not, can preferential hiring or preferential admission to educational institutions be justified? The contributors explore the complexities of this problem from several points of view. These essays, with one exception originally published in Philosophy & Public Affairs, consider the moral problems associated with improving the social and economic position of disadvantaged groups.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |