- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 63,099
- Reaction score
- 154,758
But where the document goes really wrong is trying to add political opinion into it and advocating for what reads like an anticapitalist rant
The AMA doesn't care to lobby for physiciansIt's nice to see that no matter how close we get to a "Rome is Burning" moment in medicine we will have someone to collect money and stand in the flames screaming at the top of their lungs about capitalizing and not capitalizing certain words instead of putting out the fire that would in turn allow them to have a larger voice and for a longer duration. Forget the politics of the document. That is honestly the red herring distracting from the main lesson of this document. This is just plain stupid prioritization for an organization not tasked with a woke mission. No wonder they are hemorrhaging members every year. The AMA should step up and do their job before worrying about their extra credit assignment.
Giving people good and appropriate care has nothing to do with PC language, but this AMA release strains to make you think it doesSo you have a problem with giving people good and appropriate care? Is that what you’re saying?
And so it follows that the AMA should not exist. It can't even fulfill it's actual mission and yet it has the audacity to ask for money and blow up inboxes with this. If I wanted to read this type of stuff I would do so by reading the emails I get from my political donations which would be at least appropriate and using my money for what I donated it to achieve. Medicine is its own worst enemy. It's filled with cut off the nose to spite the face people that worst of all don't even realize it.The AMA doesn't care to lobby for physicians
Your statement is doubleplusgoodBlack, white, yellow, red I see are now outlawed and we don't want to hurt feelings so they need to start changing colors in hospitals nowadays to not make these new physicians scared or hurt.
I don't disagree. The AMA document authors knew what they were doing by writing that and would be happy to see the profession self destructing into deep polarizing arguments and divides. The AMA is fundamentally against the interests of physicians and i won't mind if the AMA no longer existsAnd so it follows that the AMA should not exist. It can't even fulfill it's actual mission and yet it has the audacity to ask for money and blow up inboxes with this. If I wanted to read this type of stuff I would do so by reading the emails I get from my political donations which would be at least appropriate and using my money for what I donated it to achieve. Medicine is its own worst enemy. It's filled with cut off the nose to spite the face people that worst of all don't even realize it.
Reading this thread was infuriating because it was hook line and sinker arguing about stupid stuff instead of recognizing we have a real problem here.
I think the idea is patients being dehumanized and offended by whitelist/blacklist and not the doctorsBlack, white, yellow, red I see are now outlawed and we don't want to hurt feelings so they need to start changing colors in hospitals nowadays to not make these new physicians scared or hurt. I hope they don't ban Navy Blue next because that is my favorite color.
I've said this before on here. If you can't mentally take the trauma of hearing a word like "whitelist" then how can someone count on your to perform in healthcare in a moment of real life crisis?
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.
Because it's easier to stan on the internet than to put their money where their mouth is.I'd love to ask any of these social justice warriors on SDN why they didn't turn down their medical school acceptance in favor of a more disadvantaged applicant
For everyone in med school, there were at least 3 or 4 persons experiencing rejection and no one accounts for their oppression
I agree completely, but your reasoning is too "rational." It's a lot easier to just decree different language than to address the root of the problem. Another question is also whether using certain language affects our worldview, i.e. the old Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. I have my doubts.It's racializing the words that didn't otherwise have a racial meaning. There's gray too, which doesn't have a clear racial equivalent. The idea behind this is just a gradient based on a grayscale. The key to reducing implicit bias is to learn to stop following through the stereotypes and treating people like individuals. There's a much bigger problem that needs to be addressed of subconsciously viewing a Black person as bad just by looking at them that imo has little to do with the ordinary uses of the words black and white and more to do with the long standing negative societal portrayal of Black people. That requires changes deeper than trying to redefine/replacing words
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
That's how language works. *****, imbecile, and idiot were clinical terms before they became insults. Then ******ed replaced them but has too become unusable clinically. (As expected, some of these once clinical terms are actually now censored on this site, just proving my point about language evolution.)How is it that words that never were used to stigmatize or dehumanize somehow become so?
Key word in my sentence you quoted is "never". It's news to me that diabetic has become an insult. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The point I was making is people are saying they are offensive to satisfy their own motives which is causing more harm than good as a society. It didn't take long for "challenged" and "triggered" to become memes. Whether you agree or not, a sizable segment of our population mocks this kind of stuff and doesn't respect the people & organizations who engage in it. And worse, it reminds many of the types of people in an Orwellian dystopia and they worry this is where we are headed.That's how language works. *****, imbecile, and idiot were clinical terms before they became insults. Then ******ed replaced them but has too become unusable clinically. (As expected, some of these once clinical terms are actually now censored on this site, just proving my point about language evolution.)
Languages evolve constantly, and it's not too difficult to adapt periodically in order to respect others. That's not redefining words or their intent, it's noticing how the use and impact of words change naturally.
As you said, our job is to heal. Treating our patients with respect seems like a prerequisite for that healing.
Hence my question on who exactly has been offended by the words blacklist/whitelist. The discussion has been largely/entirely hypothetical and i have yet to see concrete examples of people actually upset by this in clinical settings. If these words carry the controversial stigma like ***** and ******, the words should be replaced.That's how language works. *****, imbecile, and idiot were clinical terms before they became insults. Then ******ed replaced them but has too become unusable clinically. (As expected, some of these once clinical terms are actually now censored on this site, just proving my point about language evolution.)
Languages evolve constantly, and it's not too difficult to adapt periodically in order to respect others. That's not redefining words or their intent, it's noticing how the use and impact of words change naturally.
As you said, our job is to heal. Treating our patients with respect seems like a prerequisite for that healing.
It's been shown very directly that terms like diabetic and asthmatic reduce people only to their disease states and patients/families hate being addressed as such. This is pervasive enough that dropping these terms entirely would be better.Key word in my sentence you quoted is "never". It's news to me that diabetic has become an insult. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The point I was making is people are saying they are offensive to satisfy their own motives which is causing more harm than good as a society. It didn't take long for "challenged" and "triggered" to become memes. Whether you agree or not, a sizable segment of our population mocks this kind of stuff and doesn't respect the people & organizations who engage in it. And worse, it reminds many of the types of people in an Orwellian dystopia and they worry this is where we are headed.
There always seems to be a small but vocal (and sometimes disruptive) group that will take the cue and declare they are offended by these newly discovered racist terms and corporate America & most of our institutions will heed. Just give it time.Hence my question on who exactly has been offended by the words blacklist/whitelist. The discussion has been largely/entirely hypothetical and i have yet to see concrete examples of people actually upset by this in clinical settings. If these words carry the controversial stigma like ***** and ******, the words should be replaced.
PPP is much better. But i'm sure the AMA document authors will rail against PPP for being hostile to interprofessionalism or some nonsenseCrap like this is why I'll never join the AMA.
I'm skeptical that "person with diabetes" will make them feel any better. It wouldn't matter 1 bit to me, but I realize not everyone is like me. Those of us with chronic conditions are constantly reminded of it. The words used to describe it are nothing compared to dealing with the condition. The disease is what is reducing me and my lifestyle, not the words. Changing the terms almost seems patronizing. I want real help from medical professionals not new words.It's been shown very directly that terms like diabetic and asthmatic reduce people only to their disease states and patients/families hate being addressed as such. This is pervasive enough that dropping these terms entirely would be better.
The AMA made a right call suggesting this replacement. Where they went wrong is extending that into an absurd political rant that reads like a poor recreation of Marx's manifesto in an attempt to divide the physicians they claim to represent.
Sadly i don't think the AMA actually cares about thatI'm skeptical that "person with diabetes" will make them feel any better. It wouldn't matter 1 bit to me, but I realize not everyone is like me. Those of us with chronic conditions are constantly reminded of it. The words used to describe it are nothing compared to dealing with the condition. The disease is what is reducing me and my lifestyle, not the words. Changing the terms almost seems patronizing. I want real help from medical professionals not new words.
The sheer irony of people in this thread saying that how we describe people and situations doesn’t matter while simultaneously arguing that calling physicians “providers” is a harbringer of doom really gets me, because it’s not like they think words don’t have power, they just don’t care about marginalized people.
I think that's two different situations. The first is adding underlying negative connotations to words that didn't have prior connotations. The second is actively replacing a word to devalue the profession entirely.The sheer irony of people in this thread saying that how we describe people and situations doesn’t matter while simultaneously arguing that calling physicians “providers” is a harbringer of doom really gets me, because it’s not like they think words don’t have power, they just don’t care about marginalized people.
Too bad the AMA doesn't care, or worse in favor of it in the name of interprofessionalism and "medicine is a team sport"Lol what is this. NPs pretending to be physicians have killed patients but yeah clearly words like “diabetic” are the problem.
Can't be sanctioned if you're never a member 😉To me, there are two things that are simultaneously true. On the one hand, I do think that we should stop using language that identifies people with their diseases. That’s clearly going to make people feel ****ty, and it’s not really helpful. At the same time, it’s always concerning to me when groups make it a focus to regulate language. That is very uncomfortable and reminiscent of some historically horrible, totalitarian regimes.
I think it’s fine to suggest that people use certain terms in professional contexts, but if the AMA started sanctioning members or something based on their non adherence to these recommendations, I would strongly object to that.
DudeI cannot see why you don't understand what makes blacklist and whitelist a problem. Who ever decided white should always stand for good and black for bad? Do you not see how this could come to be an issue for a society that labels people as black and white?Hence my question on who exactly has been offended by the words blacklist/whitelist. The discussion has been largely/entirely hypothetical and i have yet to see concrete examples of people actually upset by this in clinical settings. If these words carry the controversial stigma like ***** and ******, the words should be replaced.
Why not use dark cloud? Or rain cloud? Storm cloud?My residency has decided that the term "black cloud" to describe an unlucky resident is racist and have banned us from using it. Here I thought it referred to the weather, as in black clouds bring rain while white clouds don't. I guess I'm a closeted white supremist instead ....