In a recent article, "What Doctors Should Ignore," written by Moises Velasquez-Manoff who is an American writer for the health, science and environment section of The New York Times, addresses the issues in medicine pertaining to doctors using race as a basis of aiding patients. Velasquez-Manoff argues that doctors shouldn't rely on race, because race is socially constructed ideology that creates problems due to the fact that it is self-identified and based on physical features, which history has shown leads to intentional and unintentional racism. He proposes instead doctors should use the genetic heritage of the patient to pinpoint the specific gene or genes that are linked to the problem. Based on the fact that the article was published
…show more content…
Newkirk II, briefly discusses the history of race in medicine then goes on to explain how this new medical technique known as precision medicine is working towards using other factors such as environment and behavior along with race to properly treat a patient. Newkirk is a writer for the politics and policy department at an American magazine company called The Atlantic, and throughout the article, he clarifies the role of precision medicine in modern medical practice. This article was reported on the 6th of June 2016, and within the article, he says that this method is fairly new, therefore the target audience would be people interested in medicine. Overall, comparing the two articles, the one written by Velasquez-Manoff calls out the negative aspects of race in medicine by stating his stance and using history to argue his case while the other article brings out the positive aspects in how racial discrimination in medicine is changing by talking about the details on precision …show more content…
In the beginning, he jumps right into the topic without proving background information to help create a foundation for readers if they don't know about the history of race in medicine. Even though he uses a question not only to draw readers in but also to help the readers form an option for themselves before he states his opinion, he doesn't create enough of a background for the readers to form their opinion. Next, he states "the idea in both cases is to push beyond the clunky race labels we have inherited, as well as our own preconceptions about those labels, and to see people with greater clarity and nuance than those categories and their attendant biases generally allow" and he backs this claim by using examples of how defining race leads to misdiagnoses and missing details due to unintentional racism (as cited in Velasquez-Manoff, 2017) . He brings up the word "race" but glided over explaining the history of the word and why it causes discrepancies. By explaining the explaining the "race concept" instead of briefly dropping it in, it would strengthen his argument and lessen the confusion readers might get when refers to the issue with race but not thoroughly talking about it. Afterwards, he introduces precision medicine, by first defining the new method and then using the links between kidney disease and African American issue to further define it,
Newkirk II, briefly discusses the history of race in medicine then goes on to explain how this new medical technique known as precision medicine is working towards using other factors such as environment and behavior along with race to properly treat a patient. Newkirk is a writer for the politics and policy department at an American magazine company called The Atlantic, and throughout the article, he clarifies the role of precision medicine in modern medical practice. This article was reported on the 6th of June 2016, and within the article, he says that this method is fairly new, therefore the target audience would be people interested in medicine. Overall, comparing the two articles, the one written by Velasquez-Manoff calls out the negative aspects of race in medicine by stating his stance and using history to argue his case while the other article brings out the positive aspects in how racial discrimination in medicine is changing by talking about the details on precision …show more content…
In the beginning, he jumps right into the topic without proving background information to help create a foundation for readers if they don't know about the history of race in medicine. Even though he uses a question not only to draw readers in but also to help the readers form an option for themselves before he states his opinion, he doesn't create enough of a background for the readers to form their opinion. Next, he states "the idea in both cases is to push beyond the clunky race labels we have inherited, as well as our own preconceptions about those labels, and to see people with greater clarity and nuance than those categories and their attendant biases generally allow" and he backs this claim by using examples of how defining race leads to misdiagnoses and missing details due to unintentional racism (as cited in Velasquez-Manoff, 2017) . He brings up the word "race" but glided over explaining the history of the word and why it causes discrepancies. By explaining the explaining the "race concept" instead of briefly dropping it in, it would strengthen his argument and lessen the confusion readers might get when refers to the issue with race but not thoroughly talking about it. Afterwards, he introduces precision medicine, by first defining the new method and then using the links between kidney disease and African American issue to further define it,