Weebly



Bryan Luck

Human Biology 1090

Should Doctors Prescribe Drugs Based on Race?

Dr. Salley Satel's article titled “I am a Racially Profiling Doctor” describes why she feels racial profiling is important in the medical profession. According to her, medications can and should be given out to patients based on race. Because of her experiences and the experiences of her colleagues knowing the race of their patients help them give a better opinion and ultimately a better diagnosis. Through the process of racial profiling, medications can be distributed to those races that certain medications work better on than others.

There are a few facts presented in Dr. Satel's article that help her state her opinion. It has been noted that humans can vary genetically by .1 percent. The New England Journal of Medicine published a study of Enalapril, medicine for treatment of chronic heart failure; Enalapril was found to be less helpful to blacks than to whites. In a real life situation, Dr. Satel gives an example of why racial profiling works. An Asian man went to the hospital because he was weak and his legs were wobbly after drinking two beers. After hearing a few details about the case, the doctor knew that some Asian men have a rare condition of low potassium which can cause temporary paralysis. This condition can be brought on by alcohol. In this case, the doctor’s assumption of low potassium was correct.

It is Dr. Satel's opinion that different treatments work for certain races. It is important to recognize these patterns so doctors can quickly diagnose disease, and effectively prescribe medications. She feels the color of one’s skin isn't necessarily the issue, but the history of the skin color or ones genealogical background.

Doctors being called racial profilists may be considered a fallacy. Doctors have gone to years of school to learn about the human body and all its anomalies. They are supposed to prescribe medications that help the individual. They should know what will work with what individual instead of having to test several different drugs to find one that works. If tests have been completed that show a better success rate with different races taking different medications or having a susceptibility to different diseases, it is their responsibility to know that.

In Dr. Satel's article, she uses emotions and persuasion to get her view across. Going back to the Asian that was diagnosed with low potassium, she states that had he not been racially profiled, he would have gone through many costly medical tests. She also states that the public is wrong which is appealing to fear. By doing so, she is saying that she is correct in her opinion and racial profiling should be done.

Because of racial profiling, patients are treated with more effective medications. The illnesses each individual faces can be cured or diagnosed more quickly by using this method.

On the other hand, Gregory Michael Dorr and David S. Jones wrote an article titled “Facts and Fictions: BiDil and the Resurgence of Racial Medicine.” They discussed the history of BiDil and how it came about. Through their research and the expertise of others, they explain that BiDil was not tested properly and should not be classified as a drug specifically for blacks. They also bring the concern that BiDil may have started a new influx of racial profiling when it comes to medicine.

The generic drugs, hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate, were combined and called BiDil. A trial was done through the US Veteran's Administration that proved this drug to be effective as a treatment for heart failure. The FDA did not approve the drug to be sold and said the trial that was done was inconclusive. After reviewing the trial for racial differences and conducting an additional study on the African-American race another company requested approval from the FDA and was approved.

At a conference put on by Mr. Dorr and Mr. Jones, it was said that there was no credible evidence of race specificity. Although a trial was done on African-American's, there were no other races to compare results to during that trial. Also, it is thought that by BiDil being accepted as a racial drug causes three things: first, it brings a knowledge that race will influence biomedicine for genetic causes that aren't know; second, race will no longer be an issue when our technology improves could be a false promise; and third, until we abandon race, something is being done to make up for medical care not received in the past due to racial or social status.

In the article, one of the individuals named Anne Pollock said that racailized medications are not merely a product; however they are a new concept of race and identity. This is a fallacy because a medication is in fact a product. What one thinks of race and identity is not governed by the medication being made but rather the education and experiences gained by an individual. Also, it is asked whether race-neutral science is possible when we live in a society that is racially biased. This is a fallacy because it is proven that an individual differs by .1 percent. That .1 percent can be the difference between one man's heart and another man's lungs, or a child with Down syndrome and a child with autism. Biomedical science is about an individual’s genetics which in turn could be classified as race.

Mr. Dorr and Mr. Jones start their debate with name calling stating that Dr. Satel is politically incorrect. They continue to get their view across by appealing to hatred. They regularly refer to race and give a specific example of the “Tuskegee Experiment” which upset many people.

In the opinion of Mr. Dorr and Mr. Jones, if we allow race specific drugs and doctors to give medical diagnosis based on race, then the country as a whole may become racist. The equal treatment to each individual regardless of color will dissipate.

I feel that Dr. Satel's thesis was more effective in convincing me that racial profiling should be done. She gave specific examples of where racial profiling was used and how the diagnosis was better due to this method. I can see where it is important for doctors to know their patients and what treatments have most commonly worked based on their genetic history.

Dr. Satel could be bias because she is a doctor. She sees patients every day and has colleagues that do the same; based on their individual experiences she formed her own opinion.

I feel that Dr. Satel's article is the most correct. I don't think that calling what doctors are doing; “racial profiling” is the correct term. Race is most commonly referred to as the color of one’s skin. Although doctors are documenting the color of their skin, it's the genetics that produce the color that they're diagnosing off of. I have a son with Down syndrome and there are many anomalies that children with Down syndrome have. However, if a doctor didn't know his background including his genetics, where his family comes from, many things could have been missed in his treatments.

S.Satel, “I am a Racially Profiling Doctor: Illness Isn't Colorblind. So Why Is It Taboo for Doctors to Take Note of a patients Race?” New York Times Magazine, May 5, 2002, 56-58.

G Dorr and D Jones, “Facts and Fictions: BiDil and the Resurgence of Racial Medicine” J Law Med Ethics. 2008; 36: 443-448.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download