You post strongly reminded me of the Physician's Oath.
I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed,
ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race,
sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene
between my duty and my patient;
Teach like that. Everyone deserve the chance to learn and grow as human beings.
But that's the thing. In healthcare, we do find disparities in terms of things like race/ethnicity/national background, social standing and sexual orientation.
If you are born in the wealthy London suburb of Hampstead, you are likely to live eleven years longer than someone born in to a family in the much poorer Somers Town/St Pancras area.
If you are a sexually active gay man, you are more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than if you are a heterosexual. If you are an Ashkenazi Jew, your children are more likely to suffer Tay-Sachs disease.
If you are setting medical policy, you will sometimes need to target particular communities for intervention and prevention.
These factors should never be used as a reason for providing lower quality of care. But if an observable trend exists that is causing a particular problem for people in a specific community, it should be permitted for considerations of minority status to be taken into account for deciding health policy.
Like, I'm okay with the government spending less money and effort telling childless people to vaccinate their kids than the money they spend telling parents to. I'm okay with the National Health Service putting a free condom dispenser in gay sex clubs and not doing so in primary schools.
The comparison, while similar is not an fair one. I would call it intellectually dishonest comparison, but I am going to try give it the benefit of the doubt.
Free condom dispenser is quite minor, with a clear benefit. A black only hospital would however be a bit different. Most countries made away with such concept a life time ago, yet we do all-girls classes/schools.
There was also a new article a few days ago about grants given exclusively to female students. To compare that to the medical world, that is like giving gay people free HIV treatment, while demanding full price of people with different sexual orientation (resulting in some of those getting sub-optimal or no treatment plans). Would it be acceptable for government to make such policy?
