Download PDFContents
Introduction: Framing Racism through Healthcare Rhetoric
Theoretical and Methodological Framework: Analyzing Healthcare Rhetoric
Analysis: Rhetorical Strategies in Holmes’s Healthcare Discourse
Conclusion: The Function of Healthcare Rhetoric
After conducting this analysis, several key insights emerge regarding Holmes's rhetorical approach in framing racism as a public health issue. Holmes primarily emphasizes the urgency in language, empathy in persuasion, systemic accountability, and policy advocacy for healthcare reform.
Firstly, Holmes’s strategic use of language fosters empathy and calls for the need for urgent action. Her frequent use of phrases like "crisis", "emergency", even “threat” highlights how serious the problem is and places her argument in an urgent framework that demands attention. By referring to racism as a "public health emergency," she is using language that is frequently seen in healthcare policy, which emphasizes the seriousness of her arguments and their relevance to medical experts. By further referencing statements of nationally recognized societies, as discussed previously, she adds credibility to her argument. This strategy attracts the reader's interest but also illustrates the negative effects of lack of action, such as increasing mortality rates among marginalized groups and worsening health inequalities. The strength of her speech resides in its capacity to combine urgency and emotional reactions to make a compelling argument for immediate reform.
Secondly, Holmes's choice to focus on systemic responsibility rather than individual blame broadens the reach of her argument and fosters a sense of collective accountability. By distinguishing between personal biases and the structural mechanisms that perpetuate inequities, Holmes avoids alienating readers who might otherwise feel targeted. This rhetorical strategy is particularly powerful because it invites readers to see themselves as part of the solution without creating defensiveness. Her framing shifts the focus to institutions and policies, which she identifies as the root causes of disparities, and empowers her audience to advocate for systemic changes rather than placing blame on individuals. This approach enhances the persuasiveness of her article by presenting racism as a societal problem that requires collective action, thus strengthening her argument for systemic reform.
Lastly, Holmes's call for policy reform provides a clear and actionable path forward, aligning her article with the broader movement to declare racism a public health crisis. Her arguments to lawmakers, which present healthcare justice as a duty rather than a choice, are based on moral and ethical principles. The results of the United States GAO report on maternal health inequalities, which highlights the need to address systemic injustices through focused policy actions, are repeated in this rhetoric. By using inclusive language like "we must act," Holmes further engages the public by creating a sense of shared responsibility and bringing her audience together around one goal. Holmes effectively creates an organized rhetorical framework that forces her audience to think about the significant effects of institutional racism on public health by presenting healthcare reform as a moral and ethical necessity. Her ability to link emotional appeals, critique, and solutions makes her argument compelling but also calls for action.
Together, this reinforces the urgency of her message in the broader context of health equity advocacy. At its core, Holmes’s rhetorical approach demonstrates how writing in healthcare can accomplish much more than simply reporting data; it can shape how challenges are perceived and further addressed. Her work highlights the power of effective healthcare writing: to frame inequities as systemic, and to address them with urgency and empathy, impacting not only public perception but institutional priorities. This becomes part of a larger conversation about how society addresses health issues in academic and public spaces, especially as the conversation around health equity persists. Disparities in areas such as access to care, maternal health, and chronic disease outcomes will continue to exist, and the framing of these issues will continue to influence the extent to which there are meaningful policy modifications. Thus, individuals writing about health disparities must be intentional in how they frame responsibility, since language can either elicit individual blame or promote structural understanding. Simply put, Holmes’s article is a prime example of how rhetoric not only calls attention to inequity but also promotes meaningful action. It provides a foundation for subsequent writing that aims to link awareness and advocacy together.