I thank you for writing this article - but probably not in the way you think. Your attempt here to do good in the world, which I acknowledge and assume is made in complete good faith, reveals some dangers with approaching something like medical treatment from the framing of 'systemic racism' and identity politics - which are inherently ideological viewpoints (not to dismiss them out of hand for that reason alone) rather than scientific and data driven.

A couple of overall points: your negative take on outcomes for patients from each instance here is 100% implied rather than demonstrated. The other major implication at all times is that (apart from blood type, which we are 'forced' to accept) having differences in diagnostic approach relying on a difference existing is automatically wrong, and BAD - hung on the hook of 'race is a social construct'.

You also quote very old or even ancient assertions and imply that current medical and scientific approach is somehow 'stuck' here. Well, that might just be where you're out of position, as on the face of it that's patently absurd, and ignores the way science and society constantly self-correct and improve, by design and intention.

Here's the thing: there are differences. Between races, genders - even geographical range for the same race can be different (e.g. people based in southern or western China developed thin, long bodies, their more northern contemporaries are shorter and broader, to better cope with heat and cold climates respectively). Bone structure, body type, *muscle mass*, are different across human populations - usually driven by environmental situations over tens or hundreds of thousands of years.

Other, more medically important aspects are also different - blood pressure, kidney function, toleration levels for alcohol, and many others, do display measurable (and important) differences that would certainly inform and adjust diagnostic procedure and focus - to the ultimate benefit of the patient.

*the following 6 paragraphs are lifted from an article in American Renaissance here*

Alcoholism, for example, appears to strike different races at different rates. Asians (and American Indians to whom they are related) react more strongly than whites to alcohol. More Asians than whites show an allergic reaction to alcohol and therefore do not drink, whereas many American Indians seem to have a biological predisposition to alcoholism. Curiously, Asians are twice as likely as whites to suffer from motion sickness.

In the United States, the most frequently reported medical differences concern blacks and whites. It is well known that only blacks suffer from sickle-cell anemia, for example, a condition that helps the body resist malaria, and is therefore a benefit in the African jungle.

Most of the known medical differences, however, seem to disadvantage blacks. Black women are twice as likely to have strokes as white or Hispanic women, and they suffer more damaging aftereffects. Blacks are three to four times more likely to have dangerously underweight babies. This could be due to bad diet, poor general health, or scant medical care, but some studies indicate that even when these factors are equalized, black babies are more likely to be underweight.

Kidney disease is eighteen times more common among blacks than whites. Left untreated, AIDS kills blacks more rapidly than it does whites or Hispanics, and blacks do not respond as well to the drug AZT as do patients of other races. Glaucoma strikes blacks five times more often than it does whites. It sets in earlier, and the likelihood of getting the disease does not appear to be affected by social status or availability of medical care.

Blacks are also twice as likely as whites to have high blood pressure, and five to seven times more likely to have dangerously high blood pressure.

A study at the University of Maryland found that when black and white students were paired for age, diet, fitness, and medical history, and given a mild stress — their hands were put in ice for 30 seconds — blacks reacted by constricting their blood vessels (a hypertensive reaction) for at least ten times longer than whites. Research in Barbados has shown that mixed-race blacks are more likely to have high blood pressure if their maternal rather than paternal ancestors were African; genes passed down from the mother seem somehow to be involved. One reason for high blood pressure among blacks may be their relative inability to secrete sodium, so a salty diet can be more dangerous for blacks than for whites.

Me again. The part on concussion is also skewed, in that until the mid 2000s the NFL, and most other sports, completely ignored and dismissed concussion as a big deal - for any player. In fact it was the awful 2002 death of Iron Mike, a white player, and the subsequent call for change by a pathologist who found lesions and protein clumps in his brain (and a lawsuit) to make a change.

The ER doctrine you mention was initially based on the fact that black skulls are structurally different and denser (you can tell the race from cranial base measurement alone with 70-90% accuracy) to inform it. That's turned out not to matter, as the assumed extra protection against fracture doesn't translate into soft tissue brain injuries, and protocols are being adjusted accordingly. The new Maddocks and SCAT tests applied to any sportsperson after a head clash are being applied across the board. Not a 'racist' motivation in sight. We improve as we learn.

Your approach would remove these scientifically proven facts (constantly upgrading) from medical training and processes, and presumably want to tamp down any future discussions that stray into this area if the data takes them there — in the name of racial fairness and from an anti-discrimination viewpoint - I get that desire, but surely this shows how that could backfire in many cases if applied - and guess who is worst affected?