Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Right, but what we’re saying is that just because there are less reasonable suggestions, that isn’t a good argument to discredit the whole thing which some people will do.
AMA releases document on appropriate language and health equity
Started by TehTeddy
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Some of us are enlightened enough to see behind the curtain
That i don't disagree. I just think the message would be stronger by removing the nonsense
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
That’s one way to describe it, but not one based in reality.
This document alienated approximately 50% of posters in this thread - I think it's fair to extrapolate this small sample to the general physician population. Republicans are doctors, too.
I reject that premise that normal speech is dehumanizing, nor will I modify my speech to placate woke online mobs.
So you don't recognize the insidious attempts of proponents of "social justice" to change the language and therefore the thought patterns associated with it?
I also suggest you read 1984
Then read it again
So when a patient with sickle cell says it is dehumanizing to them to be called a sickler, then what…they’re lying?
And thanks for proving my point. You care more about your own feelings than about those of your patients. Republicans are doctors too, but being a Republican doesn’t automatically make you not care about people. That’s just being self centered and a jerk.
Classic.
Just because I’ve never heard anyone say it doesn’t mean it isn’t a slur. Just means I’ve never heard it. I didn’t deny its existence.
I want you to come play with us in SPF
Yellow streak, yellow belly, code yellow, yellow dog, yellow journalism, yellow bellied chicken, yellow peril, yellow press
Yellow belly and other yellow belly versions of being a coward are not racial and never have been. That’s what I thought he was getting at. Have never heard any of the others. Had to look them up.
You might not be aware but "yellow" has been used for Asian people about as much as "red" for American Natives. It's not rare or uncommon in circles that use such language and have for centuries.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
So you can't actually refute my point which ties directly into the document in question that started this entire thread?
Open your eyes, or keep your head buried in the sand
Yes, about 4 people have said that in this thread. I have literally never heard anyone say yellow for Asians except an Asian doctor lol. But clearly it has been and probably continues to be used plenty.
Your “point” is not an actual valid argument.
This presupposes that the people suggesting these changes have an ulterior motive. It’s not actually an argument for why that is, but rather a loaded question meant to put the other side on the defense and prove a negative. Classic tactic.
This is just reference to a novel, clearly meant to imply that anyone who disagrees with you just doesn’t know enough.
So there’s no point to refute. You didn’t make any valid points.
I will say I've never personally heard anyone say it outside of discussing history so it might not be something that's currently used all that often.
If that is the aim though, I still have to wonder what's so awful. Is it always wrong to try to change thought patterns in this way? I say no. Maybe sometimes.
If you're around enough racists that are racist enough or racist that way, you'll hear it and not that uncommonly either. Don't ask me how I've been lucky enough to overhear shyte like this as much as I have.
Yeah I guess there's lots of racism SC doesn't have. I didn't realize that anti-Semitism was still a thing until my 20s.
"Social justice" leading to tearing down of our country into full blown socialism IS their ulterior motive
They want to change the language to change thought patterns to soften resistance to their far left agenda
These are exactly the kinds of things Orwell warned about
Again, actually READ the novel and see for yourself how this is unfolding in our country
It’s very much a thing. It’s getting more aggressive again, and the number of people who justify it is huge, even in medicine.
Comply - or else!
Again, you’re not presenting an evidence. Just stating an opinion as fact.
So not wanting patients to feel marginalized is part of a liberal agenda to convert the country to socialism?
I’ve read it. Multiple times. It’s a novel, not a documentary.
This is a clear example of racial bias in medicine that needs to be addressed urgently
The AMA should be focusing on this in addition to the initial recommendation of avoiding racially offensive and stigmatizing language rather than undermining its own case with extreme examples and anticapitalist rants
The AMA should be focusing on this in addition to the initial recommendation of avoiding racially offensive and stigmatizing language rather than undermining its own case with extreme examples and anticapitalist rants
I’m not sure if you are intentionally being obtuse. So to help me clarify with your own question..
What words use yellow with an assumed negative connotation? Brown? Then we can address that specific word.
You already conceded that implicit bias occurs by associations. But now you throw in words like blackberries— what is the repulsiveness/negative of black berries?
The word black isn’t the bad thing. The association and separation of the association is what we are discussing aka implicit bias of language. The issue isn’t that there is a problem with those colors, or the gray scale, but the use of the word. Blackberries does not fit that bill. You are conflating the issue.
Jesus you are a brick wall. I was waiting for your Orwell call. Your entire rant has been a regurgitation of the Baltimore Sun article (aka word vomit).
The capitalization of Black has legitimacy and the AMA didn’t champion it FYI.
I do not have to use that term to address a separate point or to acknowledge the legitimacy of it. You are 4 messages in still harping on this. If you want any meaningful engagement from me you can try having productive responses.
Here's a gem from page 12
Equality as a process means providing the same amounts and types of resources across populations. Seeking to treat everyone the “same,” ignores the historical legacy of disinvestment and deprivation through historical policy and practice of marginalizing and minoritizing Getting on the same page: An equity primer AMA’s Organizational Strategic Plan to Embed Racial Justice and Advance Health Equity, 2021–2023 —12— communities. It has generated unequal society that traces back prior to the founding of our country. Through systematic oppression and deprivation from genocide, forced removal from land and slavery, Indigenous and Black people have been relegated to the lowest socioeconomic ranks of this country. The ongoing xenophobic treatment of undocumented Brown people and immigrants is another example.5 Thus, intergenerational wealth has mainly benefited and exists for white families. The “equality” framework, as applied, also fails individual patients and communities. For example, high-quality and safe care for a person with a disability does not translate to ‘equal’ care. A person with low vision receiving the ‘same’ care might receive documents that are illegible, depriving them of the ability to safely consent to and participate in their own treatment. Equality fails when applied to other domains, including language, health literacy and transgender health. The resulting differences in outcomes among historically marginalized and minoritized populations have been explained away through the myth of meritocracy. It is a narrative that attributes success or failure to individual abilities and merits. It does not address the centuries of unequal treatment that have intentionally robbed entire communities of the vital resources needed to thrive.
Yes, nothing to see here.....
I suspect if you did actually read 1984 you'd see it as an inspirational guide rather than a dire warning
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Yeah I'm very much aware of it now, I'm just saying I wasn't 16+ years ago because it wasn't much of a thing in SC. I suspect due to very small numbers of Jewish people in the state.
They defined “class consciousness” for you in the glossary at the end just in case you weren’t familiar.
Also apparently these authors think the professional clown Ibram Kendi is a reputable source. This whole document is just a circus.
So you have a problem with giving people good and appropriate care? Is that what you’re saying?
You also still haven’t answered the question about how a patient saying the terms used in the examples dehumanizes them is somehow part of a socialist agenda.
I don’t need to read a 50 page document to tell someone their “argument” isn’t valid. The construct of it alone makes it an invalid argument.
That they are related concepts is my point. I'm glad you acknowledged the word black in itself isn't a bad thing (which is one point of clarification). My point was the differing interpretations on white = good and black = bad that have little to do with racial connotations and more to do with how it's related to grayscale. Your point is that these associations are racially driven and determined, when i didn't see it as such.
People discuss in literary and film critique of stories being too black-and-white and lacking gray morality that has a mix of both attributes. That line of reasoning has to do with the grayscale gradient and little to do with racial connotations. So by the same extension, words like black hat, blacklist, blackmail are more to do with the grayscale gradient of bad and not with the racial implication that the race black itself is bad.
Of course, this entire discussion hinges on the idea that using words that can dehumanize and offend people should be avoided, which i don't disagree at all and have made that clear.
You’re completely minimizing the issue.
That was precisely why I asked you to clarify who is being alienated. You don’t say “white people”, or “older (traditional) people”, you say republicans…Which I think you make clear that anything that mentions a demographic identity is politics, and that by nature it alienated republicans. Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part, but I would not think all republicans are alienated by racial equity. If they are then the logical conclusion would be the party is formed and based on maintaining racial status quo aka racial inequity.
Naive or not… I would hope no legitimate republican takes that position. Polarization has made political affiliations into the most ridiculous ideologies. It’s strange to see. As an immigrant from a multi-party system it’s honestly dumbfounding.
How? The point is if people are feeling dehumanized by the supposed racial connotations of the words, then avoiding using those words is the necessary approach. What i'm disagreeing is that the words had racial connotations in the first place.
Are you serious?
Right but you’re just tunnel visioning on that. Despite it not originally having any racial connotations, the fact that black = bad is so ingrained in our society and African Americans are called black from the time they’re born is a very real issue.
Yes. Constructing an argument with a loaded question to shift the burden of proof to forcing the other side to prove a negative is an invalid argument. That’s not really a matter of opinion.
Ha! I will definitely not do that.
Forums for discussions like those “intellect” parlors of the ole days (save the racism and misogyny) would be more fruitful places to engage in sociopolitical discussions. Online anonymous forums just serve as cesspools for arguments and polarization in which neither side has any intention of actually broadening their point of view but only to put down the opposing side. I’ll pass.
There’s clear Marxist undertones in the entire document. They defined “free market” according to James Petras who’s a socialist who supported Hugo Chavez. Completely unrelated, he’s also a massive anti-Semite. Change your mind on the document yet?
@Lawpy
FYI I responded to your message to me before reading your continued exchanges with others that somewhat responded to my other points. I am still 20 messages behind in this thread.
So to underline I think you understand that the etymology of the word does matter and some words and their connotations aren’t just coincidence. I would also say I disagree that if someone gives 20 recommendations and 10 are really really dire and 5 are more benign that the inclusion of the 5 benign undermines the entire recommendation. But that is my outlook, I do not agree with most attempts to throw the baby out with the bath water. But that may be a difference in perspective.
FYI I responded to your message to me before reading your continued exchanges with others that somewhat responded to my other points. I am still 20 messages behind in this thread.
So to underline I think you understand that the etymology of the word does matter and some words and their connotations aren’t just coincidence. I would also say I disagree that if someone gives 20 recommendations and 10 are really really dire and 5 are more benign that the inclusion of the 5 benign undermines the entire recommendation. But that is my outlook, I do not agree with most attempts to throw the baby out with the bath water. But that may be a difference in perspective.
And that's an issue that's much deeper than a linguistic meaning. Society is using white as a prototype and standard for pretty much everything, especially in medicine. Tackling that would resolve much of the implicit bias and racial connotation issues than redefining and replacing words that didn't have underlying racial implications.
But if the words themselves are universally despised by the affected communities because of the negative associations, then the words need to be replaced.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Okay that’s an actual argument. I’ll have to skim the document when I’m not on inpatient.
As I said, I haven’t read it. I’m not saying anything about it. I’m just pointing out the invalidity of the other argument.
It's more that the few good recommendations are overshadowed by many bad recommendations and political talking points.
I should point out the OP gave misleading examples from the document that defeated his own point. The document is problematic for many reasons
But even you admitted that you aren’t fully aware of the historical context, sociological constructs, or lived experiences that have gone into the recommendations so how have you determines that there are many bad to few good?
I am willing to approach topics with the assumption that just because I don’t find it offensive/valid/whatever on first pass does not mean that it isn’t. Most people here seem to just have a knee jerk response to social change in general and that the status quo is good enough.
Well the status quo is never good enough, that’s the foundation of civilized society, it is ever evolving.
I wasn't aware that words like blacklist and blackmail had racial connotations that's tied to the society's racist view that black = evil and not the grayscale view of morality. Nor was i aware that people were offended by these words (hence my earlier question to Moko in first page of this thread).
I'm aware of the historical and sociological context of language in general and the need to avoid stigmatizing language.
I have no issues with recommendations like replacing noncompliance with nonadherence and reducing the power dynamic in doctor-patient relationship
