Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dangerously wrong oxygen readings in dark-skinned patients spur FDA scrutiny

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–28 of 28 posts

Re: Dangerously wrong oxygen readings in dark-skinned patients spur FDA scrutiny

#21

Post by hulitu »

faeriechangling wrote: post #20
refurb wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could have just said "For years, studies have found skin-color bias in common oxygen-measuring devices called pulse oximeters..." It would have been factually accurate since it's skin color that's the issue. Of course Arstechnica already knew that . Look at the FDA documents linked in the article. The FDA says "The committee will discuss ongoing concerns that pulse oximeters may be less accurate in individuals w…

Colorism is a pretty huge issue in many countries as well, with women buying skin lighting creams because they think it will help them in romance and work. This seems like a big reaction to a minor point because skin color is obviously tied up with racial identity, we literally have two groups of people called “black people” and “white people”.

> we literally have two groups of people called “black people” and “white people”.

Huh ? There are no "white people" or "black people". Just take a look at the people around you: everyone has its own colour given by genetics, sun exposure, origin, diet (a sick liver darkens a bit your skin for example). I've seen people with a skin like milk chocolate.

They just did a quick testing to get the aproval and called it a day. Testing is hard and expensive.

Re: Dangerously wrong oxygen readings in dark-skinned patients spur FDA scrutiny

#22

Post by Jordrok »

serf wrote: post #13
Jordrok wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are heavily, heavily overreacting here. Take a breath.

I don't think it's an over-reaction at all. Racial inequality is a hot topic, as well it should be -- it's a given that media outlets will use hot topics as a means to make money; the problem here is that brewing up anger over a supposed racial bias is entirely incorrect and potentially damning for no good reason. Little effort is needed to provoke outrage about racial discrimination, I think that it's up to good cit…

Who exactly is brewing up anger here? The only people I see getting angry are the ones in these comments who are so easily triggered by the word "race".

Re: Dangerously wrong oxygen readings in dark-skinned patients spur FDA scrutiny

#23

Post by Jordrok »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #14
Jordrok wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are heavily, heavily overreacting here. Take a breath.

If he were wrong, you'd have been able to formulate a better response than tone policing.

How's this for an argument: hyper-fixating on the word "race" in this context completely derails productive conversations about the importance of testing medical devices on a diverse range of subjects and instead turns it into yet another stupid culture war. Would the article have been substantially different if the phrase "skin color bias" had been substituted for "racial bias"? No! Absolutely not! So let's all calm the fuck down and stop getting so bent out of shape that someone had the audacity to use the 'r' word!

Re: Dangerously wrong oxygen readings in dark-skinned patients spur FDA scrutiny

#24

Post by Jordrok »

hulitu wrote: post #18
tdeck wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pulse oximeter was apparently not properly tested or calibrated on dark skinned people, despite being a widely used medical device. You don't see evidence of bias there, when people with darker skin are an afterthought?

> You don't see evidence of bias there, when people with darker skin are an afterthought? I see a bias. However, maybe the testing was done only on poor white people because that's what the testing company employed (due to operating in a poor country with no significant "coloured" people population). Everybody wants to save money. Test results almost do not matter if the test is "done". Especially when "best practice…

This is the entire point of the article - that inadequate testing can lead to inaccurate results. The point isn't that "the device is biased and therefore its makers are bad people", it's to highlight a clear-cut case where cutting costs by doing such limited testing leads to negative outcomes.

Re: Dangerously wrong oxygen readings in dark-skinned patients spur FDA scrutiny

#25

Post by shitpostbot »

hulitu wrote: post #21
faeriechangling wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Colorism is a pretty huge issue in many countries as well, with women buying skin lighting creams because they think it will help them in romance and work. This seems like a big reaction to a minor point because skin color is obviously tied up with racial identity, we literally have two groups of people called “black people” and “white people”.

> we literally have two groups of people called “black people” and “white people”. Huh ? There are no "white people" or "black people". Just take a look at the people around you: everyone has its own colour given by genetics, sun exposure, origin, diet (a sick liver darkens a bit your skin for example). I've seen people with a skin like milk chocolate. They just did a quick testing to get the aproval and called it a…

No post body was provided.

Re: Dangerously wrong oxygen readings in dark-skinned patients spur FDA scrutiny

#26

Post by MichaelCollins »

Jordrok wrote: post #23
MichaelCollins wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he were wrong, you'd have been able to formulate a better response than tone policing.

How's this for an argument: hyper-fixating on the word "race" in this context completely derails productive conversations about the importance of testing medical devices on a diverse range of subjects and instead turns it into yet another stupid culture war. Would the article have been substantially different if the phrase "skin color bias" had been substituted for "racial bias"? No! Absolutely not! So let's all calm…

That's a bit better, but "productive conversation" is subjective. His comment drives the conversation in a direction other than the one you prefer, but that is merely your preference.

Re: Dangerously wrong oxygen readings in dark-skinned patients spur FDA scrutiny

#28

Post by Jordrok »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #26
Jordrok wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How's this for an argument: hyper-fixating on the word "race" in this context completely derails productive conversations about the importance of testing medical devices on a diverse range of subjects and instead turns it into yet another stupid culture war. Would the article have been substantially different if the phrase "skin color bias" had been substituted for "racial bias"? No! Absolutely not! So let's all calm…

That's a bit better, but "productive conversation" is subjective. His comment drives the conversation in a direction other than the one you prefer, but that is merely your preference.

Ok, and I would argue that anyone who values the second topic over the first has their priorities seriously out of whack and needs to do some soul searching.
Post reply on HN