# "Races" and medical history **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [March 2, 2006, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-and-medical-history/346753 "2006-03-02T14:13:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-and-medical-history/346753/1 "2006-03-02T14:13:25Z")
After reading [http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3\_049.html](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_049.html), I remembered that one possible reason why it might be important to know ones “race” (I also agree with Cecil and Franklin on this one) is for medical histories. It has been told to me that some clines of the human population (or “race,” if you prefer) have inherently more likelyhood of developing certain diseases. I am aware that some diseases are predominantly found in, say, those of African or Semitic decent. My question, tho: If you have a thorough family medical history, doesn’t that trump the probabilities? I.e. Say a Jewish woman knows that her family has no history of Tay-Sach’s\*, going back, say 3 or 4 generations of known medical histories. Doesn’t that mean that her “race” is immaterial, as far as the disease is concerned? Otherwise, an excellent column as usual. It is always good to see Unca Cec’ setting the record straight. -Geek - I _think_ it’s Tay-Sachs that I am remembering. Please forgive and correct if I am wrong. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-and-medical-history/346753/2 "2006-03-02T15:51:05Z")
Essentially, you’re correct. But few people have perfect knowledge of ancestral health. Of course, DNA testing has completely rewritten the rules. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-and-medical-history/346753/3 "2006-03-02T17:38:24Z")
The other issue is that some “races” are more useful from that point of view than others. “Black” means that some or all of your ancestors came from somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa, one of the most genetically diverse regions on the planet. For medical purposes, “black” will tell a doctor more about likely issues from arising from diet and other cultural behavior than anything genetic. Even where a racial group contains a known risk factor, it won’t be an exact match. Sickle-cell anemia is a genetic condition among populations who live in areas where malaria is endemic. Most references simplify this to “black people,” which is largely but not strictly accurate. Southern Italians, Greeks, Turks, and Near Easterners are also susceptible, while black people from the south of Africa are relatively unaffected. But since most people don’t know and can’t easily find out where their ancestors lived, race functions as a better-than-nothing vague clue. And, as **John W. Kennedy** says, DNA testing is a much more useful guide. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2006, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-and-medical-history/346753/4 "2006-03-03T06:09:33Z")
I’m certainly looking forward to it, but genetic testing is not in the workaday medical world yet