Acknowledging the Burdens of 'Blackness'.

IF 1.3 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Hec Forum Pub Date : 2021-06-01 Epub Date: 2021-03-05 DOI:10.1007/s10730-021-09444-w
Nneka O Sederstrom, Jada Wiggleton-Little
{"title":"Acknowledging the Burdens of 'Blackness'.","authors":"Nneka O Sederstrom,&nbsp;Jada Wiggleton-Little","doi":"10.1007/s10730-021-09444-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The novel coronavirus of 2019 exposed, in an undeniable way, the severity of racial inequities in America's healthcare system. As the urgency of the pandemic grew, administrators, clinicians, and ethicists became concerned with upholding the ethical principle of \"most lives saved\" by re-visiting crisis standards of care and triage protocols. Yet a colorblind, race-neutral approach to \"most lives saved\" is inherently inequitable because it reflects the normality and invisibility of 'whiteness' while simultaneously disregarding the burdens of 'Blackness'. As written, the crisis standards of care (CSC) adopted by States are racist policies because they contribute to a history that treats Black Americans are inherently less than. This paper will unpack the idealized fairness and equity pursued by CSC, while also considering the use of modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (mSOFA) as a measure of objective equality in the context of a healthcare system that is built on systemic racism and the potential dangers this can have on Black Americans with COVID-19.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":"33 1-2","pages":"19-33"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10730-021-09444-w","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-021-09444-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/3/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

The novel coronavirus of 2019 exposed, in an undeniable way, the severity of racial inequities in America's healthcare system. As the urgency of the pandemic grew, administrators, clinicians, and ethicists became concerned with upholding the ethical principle of "most lives saved" by re-visiting crisis standards of care and triage protocols. Yet a colorblind, race-neutral approach to "most lives saved" is inherently inequitable because it reflects the normality and invisibility of 'whiteness' while simultaneously disregarding the burdens of 'Blackness'. As written, the crisis standards of care (CSC) adopted by States are racist policies because they contribute to a history that treats Black Americans are inherently less than. This paper will unpack the idealized fairness and equity pursued by CSC, while also considering the use of modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (mSOFA) as a measure of objective equality in the context of a healthcare system that is built on systemic racism and the potential dangers this can have on Black Americans with COVID-19.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
承认“黑人”的负担。
2019年的新型冠状病毒以不可否认的方式暴露了美国医疗体系中种族不平等的严重性。随着疫情日益紧迫,管理人员、临床医生和伦理学家开始关注通过重新审视危机护理标准和分诊方案,坚持“挽救最多生命”的伦理原则。然而,对“拯救的大多数生命”采取不分肤色、种族中立的态度,本质上是不公平的,因为它反映了“白人”的正常和不可见性,同时忽视了“黑人”的负担。正如所写的那样,各州采用的危机护理标准(CSC)是种族主义政策,因为它们促成了一段对美国黑人本质上不那么友好的历史。本文将揭示CSC所追求的理想化的公平和公平,同时也考虑在建立在系统性种族主义基础上的医疗保健系统中,使用修改的顺序器官衰竭评估(mSOFA)作为客观平等的衡量标准,以及这可能对患有COVID-19的美国黑人造成的潜在危险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Hec Forum
Hec Forum ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: HEC Forum is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to practicing physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, attorneys, ethicists, and other HEC committee members. Contributions are welcomed from any pertinent source, but the text should be written to be appreciated by HEC members and lay readers. HEC Forum publishes essays, research papers, and features the following sections:Essays on Substantive Bioethical/Health Law Issues Analyses of Procedural or Operational Committee Issues Document Exchange Special Articles International Perspectives Mt./St. Anonymous: Cases and Institutional Policies Point/Counterpoint Argumentation Case Reviews, Analyses, and Resolutions Chairperson''s Section `Tough Spot'' Critical Annotations Health Law Alert Network News Letters to the Editors
期刊最新文献
Medical-Legal Partnerships and Prevention: Caring for Unrepresented Patients Through Early Identification and Intervention. Organizational Ethics in Healthcare: A National Survey. Non-Psychiatric Treatment Refusal in Patients with Depression: How Should Surrogate Decision-Makers Represent the Patient's Authentic Wishes? What is a High-Quality Moral Case Deliberation?-Facilitators' Perspectives in the Euro-MCD Project. "Follow the Science" in COVID-19 Policy: A Scoping Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1