I think the difference is this statement is likely rooted in prejudiced/racist beliefs, which is particularly problematic given the historical issues that medicine has faced and contributed to in regards to race.
However, I do not believe the opposite is acceptable either. The idea of solely prioritizing patient comfort or racial concordance based on a utilitarian approach makes us uneasy because it contradicts an unspoken principle of fairness. The question is how you balance fairness to society vs. fairness to the individual.
@ChordaEpiphany brought up this point
previously which I'll summarize here: fairness to the individual means ensuring that every person has an equal opportunity to succeed based on their own merits, regardless of their background or circumstances. It involves promoting a consistent set of rules and values that allow individuals to pursue their goals, work hard, and be rewarded accordingly. On the other hand, fairness to society means prioritizing the collective good over individual aspirations, recognizing that certain sacrifices may need to be made for the greater benefit of everyone. This may involve policies and initiatives that address systemic issues and inequalities in society, even if some individuals may be negatively affected. To solely focus on patient comfort, among other problematic implications, completely ignores fairness to individuals and is overly one-sided, which is probably why we may feel uncomfortable with it.
As an interesting aside, what is the premise behind promoting race concordance between a URM doctor and patient? It's culture--cultural similarities and shared experiences that foster better rapport and perhaps clinical outcomes. In this sense, we have inconsistent views when it comes to culture. At times, culture is considered a fundamental aspect of our identity, influencing our choices and experiences. Given this, it seems logical to assume that cultures that prioritize education would be "overrepresented" in fields like medicine. However, this cultural argument is often met with resistance which is contradictory because the success of ORMs can arguably be attributed to cultural factors. Of course these cultures didn't emerge in isolation but are often shaped by systemic racism and historical realities, such as the sentiment among certain groups that full acceptance was unattainable, no matter how well they performed.
EDIT: Just saw
@chilly_md's post above so I'll refrain from further replies. It's difficult to avoid discussing race/URMs/ORMs given that this case revolves around these issues but it's fair if OP does not want to discuss these issues in their thread.