• First thought on “So you want to talk about race,” by Ijeoma Oluo

    Below is the first of several thoughts about some passages of “So you want to talk about race,” by Ijeoma Oluo. This isn’t a review. (Here’s one. Here’s another. Google can help you find more.)

    One has to read nearly to the end to encounter one of the most important ideas:

    [I]f you are white in a white supremacist society, you are racist. If you are male in a patriarchy, you are sexist. If you are able-bodied, you are ableist. If you are anything above poverty in a capitalist society, you are classist.

    Oluo is correct that many would have great difficulty accepting this. And, it does need defending. One need not reflexively agree with it. But let’s put whether it is correct or not aside. I think the first and most important test for you is whether you can suspend judgement of it for a moment and just sit with it. Can you allow for the possibility it is right? Or if it makes you uncomfortable, do you have to reject it immediately?

    Actually, I’ll go further than that. I think it’s more important to just let these ideas hang in one’s mind than to be convinced they’re right or wrong. Because to be convinced risks dispensing with them. The easy case is to conclude you’re none of these things and therefore you have no moral responsibility to address them.

    The hard case is to conclude you are these things. And even if you take action to address them, you may stop looking for the ways in which you are so.

    That is to say, suppose you admit that you must, even if implicitly and subconsciously, harbor some racist ideas and engage in some racist actions (which would be very hard for white people fed a diet of racist media and educational material in the context of deeply racist social structures and institutions to avoid). Accepting this, you might move on without actually exploring the ways in which you are racist (same for sexist, ableist, or classist). Put another way, you might accept you’re racist theoretically but not really “how.” That’s a loss. Shouldn’t you know how?

    I think the exploration is where it’s at. No need to conclude anything. Just be open to the possibility and start to notice, look, listen. Better to say, “Aha, here’s a way in which I’m racist” than simply, “I am racist.”

    If you really want the defense of the claims in that statement you’ll have to read the book. I’ve given you a brief taste of it in parentheses two paragraphs up, but if that didn’t do it for you, go read the whole thing. More posts on it to come, all under this tag.

    @afrakt

     
    item.php
  • How Racial Bias May Have Saved 14,000 Black Lives

    The following originally appeared on The Upshot (copyright 2019, The New York Times Company). It is jointly authored by Austin Frakt and Toni Monkovic.

    When the opioid crisis began to escalate some 20 years ago, many African-Americans had a layer of protection against it.

    But that protection didn’t come from the effectiveness of the American medical system. Instead, researchers believe, it came from racial stereotypes embedded within that system.

    As unlikely as it may seem, these negative stereotypes appear to have shielded many African-Americans from fatal prescription opioid overdoses. This is not a new finding. But for the first time an analysis has put a number behind it, projecting that around 14,000 black Americans would have died had their mortality rates related to prescription opioids been equivalent to that of white Americans.

    Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Starting in the 1990s, new prescription opioids were marketed more aggressively in white rural areas, where pain drug prescriptions were already high. African-Americans received fewer opioid prescriptions, some researchers think, because doctors believed, contrary to fact, that black people 1) were more likely to become addicted to the drugs 2) would be more likely to sell the drugs and 3) had a higher pain threshold than white people because they were biologically different.

    A fourth possibility is that some white doctors were more empathetic to the pain of people who were like them, and less empathetic to those who weren’t. Some of this bias “can be unconscious,” said Dr. Andrew Kolodny, a director of opioid policy research at Brandeis University.

    This accidental benefit for African-Americans is far outweighed by the long history of harm they have endured from inferior health care, including infamous episodes like the Tuskegee study. And it doesn’t remedy the way damaging stereotypes continue to influence aspects of medical practice today. “The reason to study this further is twofold,” Dr. Kolodny said. “It’s easy to imagine the harm that could come to blacks in the future, and we need to know what went wrong with whites, and how they were left exposed” to overprescribing.

    The prescription-opioid-related mortality rates of black and white Americans were relatively similar two decades ago, but researchers found that by 2010, the rate was two times higher for whites than for African-Americans.

    Because African-Americans were less likely to receive those prescriptions, they were less likely to become addicted (though they were more likely to endure unnecessary and excruciating pain for illnesses like cancer).

    The researchers, Monica Alexander, a statistician with the University of Toronto; Mathew Kiang, an epidemiologist at Stanford; and Magali Barbieri, a demographer at the University of California, Berkeley; published their study in the journal Epidemiology.

    With additional analysis at The Upshot’s request, Mr. Kiang calculated that had the African-American population’s mortality rates caused by prescription opioids been equivalent to those of whites, black Americans would have experienced 14,124 additional deaths from 1999 to 2017.

    It’s a counterfactual analysis that relies on some large assumptions. Among other things, the projection assumes that the public health and medical response to the epidemic would have remained the same even if the African-American mortality rate had been higher. And it doesn’t take into consideration any potential changes in overdoses from heroin and fentanyl had African-Americans had greater access to prescription opioids. Still, Mr. Kiang found the results “fairly remarkable in at least two ways.”

    “First, it’s a good example of how more medical care is not necessarily a good thing,” he said. “Second, it’s an extremely rare case where racial biases actually protected the population being discriminated against.”

    A crackdown in recent years has reduced opioid prescribing over all, “and the racial/ethnic gap in opioid prescribing has narrowed,” said Mr. Kiang, but he said it was unclear whether the gap had closed entirely.

    In recent years, drug overdoses have risen sharply among black Americans, particularly among older heroin users in places where fentanyl has become widespread. One reason that the death rates from heroin and fentanyl have converged between black and white people may be simple: Heroin and fentanyl are readily available outside the health system, so they’re less affected by bias within it.

    The public response to drug epidemics also tends to diverge along racial lines. During the crack epidemic, there was a greater emphasis on punishment and incarceration. With the opioid crisis primarily affecting white people, there has been more emphasis on empathy and rehabilitation. (This same disparity was seen in crack versus powder cocaine.) Race played an obvious role in the policy response, Dr. Kolodny said: “From ‘Arrest our way out of it’ to, ‘It’s a disease.’”

    The response to drug epidemics also cuts along class lines, said Dr. M. Norman Oliver, Virginia’s health commissioner. “At the beginning, the opioid epidemic was centered in rural Appalachia, and as long as it involved poor rural whites, it did not get much attention,” he said. “When those prescription opioids hit the more affluent white suburbs around big cities, that’s when people started paying attention.”

    Race-based physiological myths have long influenced medical practice, he said. Even today, some doctors believe that African-Americans are more tolerant of pain. One study found that relative to other racial groups, physicians are twice as likely to underestimate black patients’ pain.

    Several years ago, researchers at the University of Virginia, including Dr. Oliver, probed the beliefs of 222 white medical students and residents and published results in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Half held false physiological beliefs about African-Americans. Nearly 60 percent thought their skins were thicker, and 12 percent thought their nerve endings were less sensitive than those of white people.

    The medical students and residents who endorsed false beliefs like these were more likely to rate the pain of a black patient as less severe than that of an otherwise identical white patient and less likely to recommend treating black patients’ pain.

    Other studies show that physicians, white ones in particular, implicitly prefer white patients, falsely viewing them as more intelligent and more likely to follow professional advice.

    In 2013, the American Medical Association — the largest medical association in the United States — published a review of the relationship between pain and ethnicity in its Journal of Ethics. It concluded that variations in treatment stem in part from racial misconceptions about heightened pain tolerance among African-Americans and from the (false) notion that blacks and Hispanics are more likely than whites to abuse drugs.

    In turn, nonwhite patients receive less pain treatment, just as there are discrepancies in how they are treated for heart diseasecancerdiabeteskidney disease, among many other illnesses.

    Dr. Oliver said the bias problem in medicine was “not intractable — I’m actually hopeful that we can change the way people think.”

    He is African-American and said he was old enough to remember when racism was commonly overt and direct. “It’s primarily unconscious biases today,” he said, but he didn’t want to minimize those biases either. “They can lead to death.”

    It’s a bias that is overwhelmingly harmful to minority patients, even as it may have spared some from the worst outcomes of the early opioid epidemic.

     
    item.php
  • Healthcare Triage: Racial Disparities in Healthcare are Pervasive

    Study after study affirms that doctors treat their patients differently, depending on the patient’s race. Minority patients get different diagnoses, different treatments, and are often subject to being stereotyped by their physicians.

    This episode was adapted from a column I wrote for the Upshot. Links to sources can be found there.

    @aaronecarroll

     
    item.php
  • Doctors and Racial Bias: Still a Long Way to Go

    The following originally appeared on The Upshot (copyright 2019, The New York Times Company).

    The racist photo in the medical school yearbook page of Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia has probably caused many physicians to re-examine their past.

    We hope we are better today, but the research is not as encouraging as you might think: There is still a long way to go in how the medical field treats minority patients, especially African-Americans.

    A systematic review published in Academic Emergency Medicinegathered all the research on physicians that measured implicit bias with the Implicit Association Test and included some assessment of clinical decision making. Most of the nine studies used vignettes to test what physicians would do in certain situations.

    The majority of studies found an implicit preference for white patients, especially among white physicians. Two found a relationship between this bias and clinical decision making. One found that this bias was associated with a greater chance that whites would be treated for myocardial infarction than African-Americans.

    This study was published in 2017.

    The Implicit Association Test has its flaws. Although its authors maintain that it measures external influences, it’s not clear how well it predicts individual behavior. Another, bigger systematic review of implicit bias in health care professionals was published in BMC Ethics, also in 2017. The researchers gathered 42 studies, only 15 of which used the Implicit Association Test, and concluded that physicians are just like everyone else. Their biases are consistent with those of the general population.

    The researchers also cautioned that these biases are likely to affect diagnosis and care.

    study published three years earlier in the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine surveyed 543 internal medicine and family physicians who had been presented with vignettes of patients with severe osteoarthritis. The survey asked the doctors about the medical cooperativeness of the patients, and whether they would recommend a total knee replacement.

    Even though the descriptions of the cases were identical except for the race of the patients (African-Americans and whites), participants reported that they believed the white patients were being more medically cooperative than the African-American ones. These beliefs did not translate into different treatment recommendations in this study, but they were clearly there.

    In 2003, the Institute of Medicine released a landmark report on disparities in health care. The evidence for their existence was enormous. The research available at that time showed that even after controlling for socioeconomic factors, disparities remained.

    There’s significant literature documenting that African-American patients are treated differently than white patients when it comes to cardiovascular procedures. There were differences in whether they received optimal care with respect to a cancer diagnosis and treatment. African-Americans were less likely to receive appropriate care when they were infected with H.I.V. They were also more likely to die from these illnesses even after adjusting for age, sex, insurance, education and the severity of the disease.

     
    item.php
  • Racism and the drug war

    With one exception, I received nothing but praise for my recent piece on U.S. opioid history and policy. But that does not mean the exception has no merit! It came from Matthew Holt who conveyed that it lacked acknowledgement of “the role of Anslinger & later drug warriors, and the racism involved in opium bans.”

    He’s right. Likely Matthew is a greater expert on these matters than I am, and he pointed me to one of his earlier pieces that touches on the subject.* It’s about the, apparently nearly completely groundless, prosecution of Dr. Frank Fisher who prescribed opioid medications to poor patients in a rural California county.

    Meanwhile, what do you think happened to the patients at his clinic, which was destroyed by this action? Go read the full interview with Fisher at DRCNet, but this is an extract about what happened to the people he was serving. As you might have guessed their transition from his care to that of others in that rural underserved area was not exactly smooth.

    In the extract, Fisher is quoted,

    The availability of pain management for poor people is even worse than for the rest of us. And it’s not good for the rest of us. Everyone who develops chronic pain is likely to be killed by it because of medical neglect. It’s a malignancy in the sense that if it is not controlled, it will spread and progress. My patients were effectively tossed out on the street to fend for themselves. The local medical clinic saw them as drug addicts who needed to be detoxed.

    As for Anslinger, his Wikipedia entry includes that he “has been accused [source] of being responsible for racial themes in articles against marijuana in the 1930s.”

    Had I done more research in this area and folded these themes into my piece, I’d have drawn a fairly similar conclusion. Narcotic painkillers remain both problematic (addictive, subject to diversion) yet opioids have some worthwhile uses (for pain and addiction treatment). These alone present substantial policy challenges. If the implementation of policy (whether good or bad) also has an implicit or explicit racial bias, that’s no less worthy of our attention.

    * He also pointed me to this other one, but the link didn’t work as of the time I wrote this post. It does now. You can click through and read it for yourself. It’s short.

    UPDATE: I removed Matthew’s full tweet and made some edits to accommodate that removal, as it included some criticism he later retracted.

    @afrakt

     
    item.php
  • Blogosphere Ethics

    If you overhear a remark made by a friend that others you care about (members of your family, say) interpret as racist, what should you do? Do you have a moral obligation to speak out?

    Things like this make me squirm. I had trouble finding good guidance on the internet. (The NPR ethicist is somewhat vague on this point. Come on!) Since I would like less racism to exist in the world I would be motivated to take some sort of action, but what, and how?

    Does it matter what my relationship with the speaker is? As a practical matter it does. While I may have a moral obligation to do or say something, I also have obligations to keep my job, to keep my family safe, and so forth. Thus, if the speaker is my powerful and resentful boss (in actually my boss is no such thing) I might approach the situation with great caution. If the speaker is a violent thug I would walk away. If the speaker is a friend I would ask her to reconsider her words, to reflect on their impact on others, to contemplate whether they need to be said even if thought.

    What about in cyberspace, where one can have relationships without meeting? What if the speaker is such a cyber-friend? Online one can link, comment, and cross-post in ways that suggest endorsement. What if the words were not overheard, but read on a blog, one to which you have contributed? What are the ethics in the blogosphere?

    This situation has come up and now I have to figure out what to do. I am not going to publicly name the blogger whose post my family and I find offensive. I do not think that is constructive or important. I did, however, communicate with him privately to suggest he consider removing the post because it could (did) cause offense, reflects poorly on his site, and perhaps those that advertise, post, or link to it. I’ve removed all such links from my site. 

    I love the internet. I love that anybody can express anything they like. I respect everyone’s right to free expression. But I don’t want to be associated with some of it. The blogosphere is a strange, wonderful, and interesting world. I’m still learning how to behave in it. Perhaps we all are (?). I’ve published this post because I find online relationships, communities, cultures, and ethics interesting, if not important. I welcome comments, thoughts, and links about such matters. If you’ve got any, lay them on me.

     
    item.php