How medicine discriminates against non-white people and women
1–10 of 24 posts
Re: How medicine discriminates against non-white people and women
#2Re: How medicine discriminates against non-white people and women
#3A dermatologist friend of mine trained in a virtually all-white area and then got a job in a place that wasn't. Apparently it was a significant adjustment caring for patients with darker skin.
Re: How medicine discriminates against non-white people and women
#4I was reading that testing often happens on men for medications because their biochemistry is fairly constant in a month. Fluctuating hormones complicated drug testing.
This seemed to me to miss testing a scenario that affects about half the population.
Re: How medicine discriminates against non-white people and women
#5Even The Economist is pushing Critical race theory (CRT) now. What a time to be alive.
Re: How medicine discriminates against non-white people and women
#6I was reading that testing often happens on men for medications because their biochemistry is fairly constant in a month. Fluctuating hormones complicated drug testing. This seemed to me to miss testing a scenario that affects about half the population.
It's not a single scenario; that seems to minimise the complexity.
Re: How medicine discriminates against non-white people and women
#7[flagged]
Re: How medicine discriminates against non-white people and women
#8Even The Economist is pushing Critical race theory (CRT) now. What a time to be alive.
This comment seems to show a pretty fundamental misunderstand of what CRT is (or isn't), or this article, or both.
The article is a bit fluffy, but some of the problems they are describing are well known in the industry (less agreement on what to do about it) and have been showing up in the medical literature for decades at this point.
Re: How medicine discriminates against non-white people and women
#9Even The Economist is pushing Critical race theory (CRT) now. What a time to be alive.
This comment seems to show a pretty fundamental misunderstand of what CRT is (or isn't), or this article, or both. The article is a bit fluffy, but some of the problems they are describing are well known in the industry (less agreement on what to do about it) and have been showing up in the medical literature for decades at this point.
ska: everything in medical literature is fact and in no way fiscally motivated
Re: How medicine discriminates against non-white people and women
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment seems to show a pretty fundamental misunderstand of what CRT is (or isn't), or this article, or both. The article is a bit fluffy, but some of the problems they are describing are well known in the industry (less agreement on what to do about it) and have been showing up in the medical literature for decades at this point.
ska: everything in medical literature is fact and in no way fiscally motivated
> everything in medical literature is fact and in no way fiscally motivated
It's hard to imagine a net financial benefit for many of the studies.
Of course it's not perfect. But dismissing something like this out of had for what, (vague ideological reasons?) is irrational. There is good research in the area, and you are free to read it. There is some poor research in the area too, such is life.
It's not even suggesting anything malicious, just that in many cases if you follow the easiest path in design and testing, you will end up biasing your inputs in ways that have impact. I have seen this play out.