blood out to the body and contributes to hardening of the arteries, or atherosclerosis, to stroke, kidney disease, and to heart failure” (WebMD). This is another disease that doctors tend to categorize African Americans to have. Doctors are looking at the physical aspects of the persons carrying the disease, dissecting it base on the color of their skin rather than hereditary traits. The danger in this is disavowing the claims of social and environmental effects on the individuals. These are prominent variables that may affect the expression of this and many other diseases. Root says “people we customarily classify as black or white—are divided by genes or heritable traits, but most biologists now understand that no cluster of genes or heritable
…show more content…
Are we still supposed to turn a blind eye to raced-based categorization of medicine? Or is this the instance in where we should use it? In the matters of time, I would say yes, if the individual’s race is easily identifiable. We should use race to narrow down the possible medical treatments for the patient. On the other hand, some individual’s race is not transparent. Playing the guessing game when it comes to mixed-race or more specifically, mixed-ethnic individuals can be extremely hazardous. Given this point, possible treatments could affect the body of the person it is given to. The individual could react differently than normal. Problems that can arise are incredibly toxic levels of acidity in the body, high blood pressure, organ failure or even death. In the end, was it really necessary? Was it worth it? Damage can be done on both ends of the spectrum. So, in response to this response, Root would “reason to treat sex as a variable that explains the genetic difference in drug response between the populations, since the gene that controls the response could be located on a sex chromosome” rather than race. Moreover, looking at ancestry makes for a better diagnosis and …show more content…
Doctors are using race as an independent variable to treat patients. In doing so, they are withholding ACE inhibitors, a drug treatment that relieves pressure in the blood vessels, and designating this drug for whites only. Recent studies have shown that African Americans are less likely to respond well to that drug treatment while responding better to ‘beta-blockers: which is why it is limited to Caucasians. Root claims “treating all black patients the same, offering them all the ‘‘black drug’’ denies some blacks a better or equally effective treatment” (p. 1178). Again we can see that African Americans are being marginalized. They are being confined to an ideology that does not work in their favor. Medical restraints based on what doctors think they know, is truly unsatisfactory and severely dangerous to black people as a whole. It is not justifiable to use just one component. The factors vary. Doctors are omitting the variables such as age, environment, and lifestyle. Consequently, they refuse to test their limits because of implicit bias and preconceived misconceptions. Drawing back to mixed-race individuals how would the proxy work for them? If a biracial individual of European and African ancestry had hypertension, and they identified with white instead of black, but you as a doctor assigned them as black, would you then restrict them from receiving the ACE inhibitor? Would you let
Are we still supposed to turn a blind eye to raced-based categorization of medicine? Or is this the instance in where we should use it? In the matters of time, I would say yes, if the individual’s race is easily identifiable. We should use race to narrow down the possible medical treatments for the patient. On the other hand, some individual’s race is not transparent. Playing the guessing game when it comes to mixed-race or more specifically, mixed-ethnic individuals can be extremely hazardous. Given this point, possible treatments could affect the body of the person it is given to. The individual could react differently than normal. Problems that can arise are incredibly toxic levels of acidity in the body, high blood pressure, organ failure or even death. In the end, was it really necessary? Was it worth it? Damage can be done on both ends of the spectrum. So, in response to this response, Root would “reason to treat sex as a variable that explains the genetic difference in drug response between the populations, since the gene that controls the response could be located on a sex chromosome” rather than race. Moreover, looking at ancestry makes for a better diagnosis and …show more content…
Doctors are using race as an independent variable to treat patients. In doing so, they are withholding ACE inhibitors, a drug treatment that relieves pressure in the blood vessels, and designating this drug for whites only. Recent studies have shown that African Americans are less likely to respond well to that drug treatment while responding better to ‘beta-blockers: which is why it is limited to Caucasians. Root claims “treating all black patients the same, offering them all the ‘‘black drug’’ denies some blacks a better or equally effective treatment” (p. 1178). Again we can see that African Americans are being marginalized. They are being confined to an ideology that does not work in their favor. Medical restraints based on what doctors think they know, is truly unsatisfactory and severely dangerous to black people as a whole. It is not justifiable to use just one component. The factors vary. Doctors are omitting the variables such as age, environment, and lifestyle. Consequently, they refuse to test their limits because of implicit bias and preconceived misconceptions. Drawing back to mixed-race individuals how would the proxy work for them? If a biracial individual of European and African ancestry had hypertension, and they identified with white instead of black, but you as a doctor assigned them as black, would you then restrict them from receiving the ACE inhibitor? Would you let