And it doesn't have to mean you're a "white supremacist." Couldn't it be as simple as choosing to abandon a binary white equals good black equals bad that could be promoting subconcioud bias or hurt feelings in some ppl?
It's based on a grayscale? Not everything white vs black has to have a racial meaning. That's a very recent reinterpretation of language that's largely hypothetical. If people are legitimately upset by these words, then replacing the words is necessary and justified. Show me the people actually offended by the language in clinical settings and not just in hypothetical scenarios.
Does this actually happen? This is my point. Words like diabetic or asthmatic or even ***** are clearly stigmatizing and damaging with real negative patient outcomes. The whole racial reinterpretation of black vs white in words with nonracial meanings is hypothetical with no clear instance where this language is actually damaging in clinical settings.
In western culture, black has been associated with death for far longer than when westerners started the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
Green is good because green represents climate friendly
I dunno why you quoted me, as you didn't address my one and only point. Black clouds bring rain and storms. White clouds don't. It is a great analogy to describe someone having a storm-filled call night vs having an easy call night and has nothing to do with genders or minorities.
Taken over when? And problematic to who? Are people actually offended by the supposed racial connotations of blacklist/blackmail or are we discussing hypotheticals?
AMA doesn't care about any of those. Their priority is on rewriting the language which they think is the easiest thing to do.
This is not a fruitful discussion. Honestly toxic and going nowhere. Surely everyone's time here is worth more, both financially and figuratively, than this crap.Moderator note:
Emotions are running high. Here's a picture of a cat to cool things down.
Let's keep the discussion civil and on-topic. It's possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Thank you.
The document is incredibly political. It reads like a sloppy version of Marx's manifesto. If the document strictly focused on how to improve patient interactions, it wouldn't be this bad. It'd still be irritating regardless because the AMA is a completely hypocritical organization that doesn't give a crap about physicians or med students other than insincerely virtue signaling, and the AMA telling anyone what to do is a problem in itself for reasons stated earlier
So to be clear, there was a subset of posts which were clearly political, ie directly bashing on political party by name, and those were deleted. We also removed a few posts which quoted the explicitly political posts. I believe a few of your posts were deleted because they were quoting the political posts, and sort of didn't make sense out of context.
Lol most of this makes sense to me. Seems like people just don't like the abuses of unbridled capitalism being challenged and discussed.
Except why is the AMA the one to challenge this? That's coming across as hypocritical unless the organization explicitly calls for an end to legacy admissions and points out the problem of med school class sizes being largely of upper class backgrounds
Eh. Talking the talk without walking the walk is a favored tactic amongst most of the large organizations. Actual change especially regarding entrenched hierarchies is hard. Placating or pretending or lip service is common.
Yup; this was not written by clinicians.
Why can't you say "of Indian descent" if it matters or skip it altogether until social history where you can write where they were born and/or still live?
Exactly.
Indians should by definition refer to people from India without any further explanation.
I know you're catching up and responding to old posts on first page of the thread but you missed the example i listed from the document i quoted earlier. I don't want to go in circles by revisiting 4 pages of discussion again so will just leave it at that
Because that's how they are defined. Just because Columbus came and got lost in the journey and miscategorized a group of people doesn't mean the original meaning needs to be replaced.
Because we're on the topic of language change, calling Native Americans as such (or also Indigenous Americans) improves the clarity while retaining the word Indian for people from India. The AMA made a right suggestion but incorrectly stated the word was stigmatizing.
Most professional organizations will sanction members for failing to adhere to whatever they consider to be appropriate conduct based on their published standards, provided that they think the offense is serious enough. The APA will certainly do this, and it looks like the AMA will, too: CEJA rules for review of membership
Wow my opinion of the AMA just got a lot worse.
Sorry, I don't get my plumbing advice from my electrician and my electrical advice from my plumber. They should advocate for physicians against corporatization, increasing bureaucracy from insurance and government, and mid-levels yada yada yada. We are all more effective doing our jobs.
I mean, I fail to see the pearl clutching issue that an group of private optional group membership has at its disposal revoking membership, especially given the dim view many seem to take of membership in said group, and the fact that likely if you manage to piss off the AMA to that point likely you don't value membership in it that much to begin with
Except that many, perhaps most, applications for a medical license ask about whether you have ever been sanctioned by a professional organization. So, being sanctioned by a professional organization can have implications for your ability to continue to practice.
