Race is not a Diagnosis.
A few years ago, I sat in a doctor’s office, listening as he explained why a certain blood pressure medication was “the best choice for someone like me.” I nodded along, assuming his recommendation was based on my health history—until he added, almost as an afterthought, “It’s particularly effective for Black patients.”
That moment stuck with me. Not because the medication was wrong, but because the reasoning felt off. Was my skin color really the best indicator of how my body would respond to treatment? It reminded me of the insidious logic behind “separate but equal”—a doctrine that claimed segregation was fair, even as it reinforced inequality. Race-based medicine operates on the same flawed premise: that dividing people into rigid categories and treating them differently based on those categories is somehow progressive.
The Problem with Race-Based Medicine
For decades, medicine has leaned on racial categories as proxies for biology—despite overwhelming evidence that race is a social construct, not a genetic one. Take BiDil, ( · In 2005, the FDA approved BiDil specifically for “self-identified African American patients” with heart failure. This marked the first time a drug was approved for use in a particular racial group. The approval was based on the results of a trial called A-HeFT (African-American Heart Failure Trial),
The first drug FDA-approved specifically for African American patients. Its approval was based on a clinical trial (A-HeFT) that lacked a non-Black control group, making it impossible to determine if the drug was truly race-specific or just effective in general.
Critics called this what it was: racial essentialism, the flawed idea that race dictates biology. Like “separate but equal,” it’s a veneer of fairness masking a system that perpetuates stereotypes and ignores individuality.
A Shift in Perspective
Thankfully, the tide is turning. The American Medical Association (AMA) and the National Academy of Medicine now explicitly oppose race-based medicine. In 2021, the AMA declared that “race is a social construct and not a reliable proxy for genetics.” Similarly, the Journal of Ethics has argued that abolishing race-based medicine is essential for health justice.
The Solution: Precision Medicine
The alternative? Precision medicine—an approach that considers individual genetics, lifestyle, and environment, not racial identity. As JAMA notes, “Race is a poor proxy for the complex interplay of factors that influence health.”
For me, this shift couldn’t come soon enough. After that initial prescription, I sought a second opinion. The new doctor didn’t mention my race once. Instead, she asked about my family history, my diet, my stress levels—the things that actually affect my health.
Why Representation Still Matters
None of this means diversity in healthcare isn’t vital. Studies show that patients fare better when their providers share their cultural background. But representation shouldn’t mean reducing people to racial categories when prescribing care—just as “separate but equal” was never about equality, but control.
Moving Forward
My experience was a small example of a much larger problem. Using race as a medical shortcut isn’t just lazy—it’s dangerous. It echoes the logic of “separate but equal,” where superficial distinctions were used to justify systemic inequity.
It’s time to retire the race card in medicine. Let’s replace it with a patient-first mindset—one that treats people as individuals, not as categories. Because equality isn’t about separation. It’s about seeing people for who they truly are.
Reference:
I realize this is a bit controversial so I included sources:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2783090
