Coming to a Hospital Near You? Doctors Call for 'Proactively Antiracist Agenda for Medicine'

(AP Photo/Michael Conroy)

If I see one more story about “proactive antiracism”… That said, this little “antiracism” tidbit in the news is among the most troubling I’ve seen. Bottom line: if your grandma happens to be white and is in need of a life-saving medical procedure, she just might get passed over in favor of a person of color due to a “proactively antiracist agenda for medicine.”

Let’s be clear: I’m not suggesting your grandma should receive preferential medical care over a person of color or anyone else, based on race or the color of her skin. That practice should not happen. Period. Regardless of who is what color.

Yet, if Drs. Bram Wispelwey and Michelle Morse, advocates for a “proactively antiracist agenda for medicine” have anything to say about it, that’s exactly what might someday happen. God knows other “progressive reforms” strongly suggest so.

Writing in the Boston Review, Wispelwey and Morse describe an “anti-racist agenda for medicine” as “offering preferential care based on race or ethnicityin full awareness that it violates civil rights law and will “elicit legal challenges,” tweeted columnist Wesley Yang, but ” in confidence that recent WH executive provides backing.”

Gee, I wonder who that is?

The highlighted section in Yang’s tweet 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.”

In other words, the “logic” of these leftists suggests that because alleged preferential medical treatment has historically been provided to “white people,” we can “fix it” by flipping it on its head and providing preferential medical treatment to people of color. And that is entirely fair in their minds for the same reason so-called “reparations” are fair: people of color must be given an “unfair advantage” so they can “catch up” with “white people.”

Could they be any clearer? These “physicians” want exactly what Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Biden’s handlers — along with the entirety of the so-called “progressive” Democrat Party— want. And why? One word: votes.

Here’s a bit of background from our friends over at Twitchy.

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.

And there you have it, folks. The cancer known as “critical race theory” is doing its damnedest to force its way into life-saving — or denying — medical procedures.

CRT in a nutshell, via the “totally-non-biased” American Bar Association:

Recognition that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed and socially significant. It recognizes that science refutes the idea of biological racial differences. According to scholars Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, race is the product of social thought and is not connected to biological reality.

Acknowledgement that racism is a normal feature of society and is embedded within systems and institutions, like the legal system, that replicate racial inequality. This dismisses the idea that racist incidents are aberrations but instead are manifestations of structural and systemic racism.

CRT recognizes that racism is codified in law, embedded in structures, and woven into public policy. CRT rejects claims of meritocracy or “colorblindness.” CRT recognizes that it is the systemic nature of racism that bears primary responsibility for reproducing racial inequality.

Even this self-proclaimed “lefty” saw the insanity — giving a shout out to former President Donald Trump in the process. But “Pete” only thinks a conservative judicial majority can hold back the left for so long.

“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” is right, of course — irrespective of the dreamy desire of Congressional Democrats [and Biden’s handlers] to pack the Supreme Court.

This healthcare worker called BS on the insanity.

“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” is to be commended for her integrity. Unfortunately, and ominously, the left cannot.

Finally, more reality”

“That crashing sound is the Hippocratic Oath being throw out the window.”

My exact thought, when I first saw the news.

To paraphrase a quote from the classic Mel Brooks comedy, “Blazing Saddles”:

“Hippocratic Oath? We don’t need no stinking Hippocratic Oath!”

At least as suggested by Drs. Bram Wispelwey and Michelle Morse, that is.