AMA releases document on appropriate language and health equity

[TehTeddy]

https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/ama-aamc-equity-guide.pdf

The AMA recently released this equity guide focused on how words nobody finds problematic are now problematic. For example, the term "diabetic" is dehumanizing - the correct term is "person with diabetes." I wonder if this was concluded after surveying diabetics and finding that the majority consider the term dehumanizing, or because a small handful of academics decided it was. The term "whitelist" or "blacklist" is also racist now, because it exemplifies white privilege, somehow.

Please discuss in what I'm sure will be a fruitful discussion.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Captain_Falcon]

My wife's work uses language like this. For example, "experiencing homelessness" as opposed to homeless. For people who want to adopt this language we should take it it the extreme.

That person is not "employed" but experiencing employment.

I say I'm not a medical student, I am simply a person experiencing medical education.

That physician? No, you mean someone experiencing physicianhood

 

[GoSpursGo]

https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/ama-aamc-equity-guide.pdf

The AMA recently released this equity guide focused on how words nobody finds problematic are now problematic. For example, the term "diabetic" is dehumanizing - the correct term is "person with diabetes." I wonder if this was concluded after surveying diabetics and finding that the majority consider the term dehumanizing, or because a small handful of academics decided it was. The term "whitelist" or "blacklist" is also racist now, because it exemplifies white privilege, somehow.

Please discuss in what I'm sure will be a fruitful discussion.

That language is dehumanizing, though. It literally reduces them down to their disease process. And within my field of heme/onc, nobody appreciates being called "a leukemic," "a sickler," or "a sarcoma."

This isn't new, it's a shift that has been happening over the last decade or so. And in this case it isn't just fluffy political correctness, it really is a change that should happen. Especially when it takes like two extra syllables to say it correctly.

 

[Oso]

In residency (peds), I heard of multiple instances of patients and/or parents being unhappy when they overheard the terms “diabetic”, “asthmatic”, “CF-er”, “heme/onc-er”, etc. being used.

Think of it what you will, but it’s hard to argue they’re not dehumanizing when the patients/families themselves are saying they find them dehumanizing.

I never found it much more difficult to say “4 year old with asthma” compared to “4 year old asthmatic”

 

[DD214]

Read the actual document in full

"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, and 2 + 2 = 5."

Orwell was ahead of his time

 

[GoSpursGo]

Read the actual document in full

54 pages? Yeah, no I'm sure there are some things in there that are eyeroll-inducing.

But the specific example cited by the OP is a change that I think should be made more widespread.

 

[DD214]

Maybe we should all encourage our patients experiencing cellphone possession or computer access to contact the AMA and demand a free membership after they've identified as a physician (but Google said...)

They certainly wouldn't want anyone to feel excluded just because they lack credentials or are experiencing lack of incentive to pay for membership

 

[Lawpy]

https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/ama-aamc-equity-guide.pdf

The AMA recently released this equity guide focused on how words nobody finds problematic are now problematic. For example, the term "diabetic" is dehumanizing - the correct term is "person with diabetes." I wonder if this was concluded after surveying diabetics and finding that the majority consider the term dehumanizing, or because a small handful of academics decided it was. The term "whitelist" or "blacklist" is also racist now, because it exemplifies white privilege, somehow.

Please discuss in what I'm sure will be a fruitful discussion.

What does the AMA suggest calling someone from India if Indian is inappropriate?

 

[Lawpy]

That language is dehumanizing, though. It literally reduces them down to their disease process. And within my field of heme/onc, nobody appreciates being called "a leukemic," "a sickler," or "a sarcoma."

This isn't new, it's a shift that has been happening over the last decade or so. And in this case it isn't just fluffy political correctness, it really is a change that should happen. Especially when it takes like two extra syllables to say it correctly.

In residency (peds), I heard of multiple instances of patients and/or parents being unhappy when they overheard the terms “diabetic”, “asthmatic”, “CF-er”, “heme/onc-er”, etc. being used.

Think of it what you will, but it’s hard to argue they’re not dehumanizing when the patients/families themselves are saying they find them dehumanizing.

I never found it much more difficult to say “4 year old with asthma” compared to “4 year old asthmatic”

I agree using terms like "diabetic" and "asthmatic" are dehumanizing and need to stop but some of the AMA suggestions are frankly absurd. They're trying to redefine and even replace ordinary uses of words white and black in this bizarre post-2020 woke thinking.

 

[Moko]

As a resident, I recall a patient's family member being quite furious at our team's use of the terms "alcohol abuse" and "alcoholic hepatitis". Since that incident, I've replaced those terms with "alcohol use disorder" and "alcohol-induced hepatitis". Ditto for other substance use disorders. Words matter for some people especially when they are used to describe their or their loved one's condition(s). It costs me nothing to be reasonably more PC, and if it helps even a few people feel more respected, then all the better. Just my thoughts.

 

[Lawpy]

As a resident, I recall a patient's family member being quite furious at our team's use of the terms "alcohol abuse" and "alcoholic hepatitis". Since that incident, I've replaced those terms with "alcohol use disorder" and "alcohol-induced hepatitis". Ditto for other substance use disorders. Words matter for some people especially when they are used to describe their or their loved one's condition(s). It costs me nothing to be more PC, and if it helps even a few people feel more respected, then all the better. Just my thoughts.

But have you seen any patient offended by the terms whitelist and blacklist?

 

[Moko]

But have you seen any patient offended by the terms whitelist and blacklist?

I have not. But you are engaging in a straw man argument: the case for reasonable verbiage changes is not invalidated by the presence of more extreme examples. Just my thoughts.

 

[doomer_md]

Maybe I should have gone into investment banking.

I think I need a psychiatrist after skimming through that.

 

[Lawpy]

I have not. But you are engaging in a straw man argument: the case for reasonable verbiage changes is not invalidated by the presence of more extreme examples. Just my thoughts.

It's not a strawman. It's directly listed in the AMA document that adds completely absurd suggestions to what is otherwise a reasonable recommendation. The AMA is undermining its own case

 

[Lawpy]

Table 5: Contrasting Conventional (Well-intentioned) Phrasing with Equity-focused Language that Acknowledges Root Causes of Inequities

Conventional:

For too many, prospects for good health are limited by where people live, how much money they make, or discrimination they face.

Revision:

Decisions by landowners and large corporations, increasingly centralizing political and financial power wielded by a few, limit prospects for good health and well-being for many groups.

 

[GoSpursGo]

I agree using terms like "diabetic" and "asthmatic" are dehumanizing and need to stop but some of the AMA suggestions are frankly absurd. They're trying to redefine and even replace ordinary uses of words white and black in this bizarre post-2020 woke thinking.

Yeah, but as @Moko said you're arguing against something that we aren't saying. The OP specifically said that we should still be able to call patients "diabetics." That term and other shorthands that refer to patients by their disease process are dehumanizing, and there are several other terms that we should stop using as well. We shouldn't have to defend line by line every single recommendation in this document, the underlying point is valid: that words can be hurtful to our patients and damaging to our doctor-patient relationship.

 

[Lawpy]

That AMA document is starting to read like political propaganda.

 

[Lawpy]

Yeah, but as @Moko said you're arguing against something that we aren't saying. The OP specifically said that we should still be able to call patients "diabetics." That term and other shorthands that refer to patients by their disease process are dehumanizing, and there are several other terms that we should stop using as well. We shouldn't have to defend line by line every single recommendation in this document, the underlying point is valid: that words can be hurtful to our patients and damaging to our doctor-patient relationship.

Ok but i didn't disagree with that and OP also listed this:

The term "whitelist" or "blacklist" is also racist now, because it exemplifies white privilege, somehow.

My point is the AMA is hurting its own message by starting with a legitimately important recommendation and going off track with propaganda-sounding suggestions. It becomes less about the doctor-patient relationship and more about sending a political message

 

[GoSpursGo]

Ok but i didn't disagree with that and OP also listed this:



My point is the AMA is hurting its own message by starting with a legitimately important recommendation and going off track with propaganda-sounding suggestions. It becomes less about the doctor-patient relationship and more about sending a political message

Frankly, @Lawpy , I think you are well-intentioned, but every single thread you plant your flag in the sand on an issue and nothing anybody says ever gets you to consider an alternative point of view. You always have a "yeah but what about x, y, and z," and usually x, y, and z have nothing at all to do with what the other person is trying to say. It becomes very difficult to have a rational conversation under those conditions.

Neither @Moko or I said anything about that latter part. Calling patients by their disease process is legitimately a dehumanizing practice within medicine which needs to stop, which is the point that multiple people are trying to make here. There are other terms such as the ones that @Moko suggested that also should be changed. I have no opinion on whitelist/blacklist, but if I did it wouldn't prevent me from considering the other points or make me think the entire document is propaganda.

 

[Lawpy]

Frankly, @Lawpy , I think you are well-intentioned, but every single thread you plant your flag in the sand on an issue and nothing anybody says ever gets you to consider an alternative point of view. You always have a "yeah but what about x, y, and z," and usually x, y, and z have nothing at all to do with what the other person is trying to say. It becomes very difficult to have a rational conversation under those conditions.

Neither @Moko or I said anything about that latter part. Calling patients by their disease process is legitimately a dehumanizing practice within medicine which needs to stop, which is the point that multiple people are trying to make here. There are other terms such as the ones that @Moko suggested that also should be changed. I have no opinion on whitelist/blacklist, but if I did it wouldn't prevent me from considering the other points or make me think the entire document is propaganda.

Except i have earlier in this thread stated:

I agree using terms like "diabetic" and "asthmatic" are dehumanizing and need to stop but some of the AMA suggestions are frankly absurd.

So right there, i already expressed my agreement with your and Moko's point.

 

[Crayola227]

These terms could be dehumanizing, but I will also say that it can also make people feel like they are part of a tribe or it's important to their identity, that the experience of their disease is central to their identity.

I don't want to be a "birthing person," I'm going to be a mother. I'm not just a person experiencing birth or parenthood.

I could use other examples.

This isn't meant to invalidate people who don't like these terms and want change. Just another side and another way of looking at it.

I agree that wherever possible we should respect what language patients and families prefer.

Some pushback inevitably comes as well though, when you want to affect jargon of a group. I think it's good to acknowledge that and why some physicians talk the way they do in the workroom, but within reason. And find a way to navigate that, that can honor physicians as well as non-physicians, both in and out of the workroom or within their hearing.

 

[Ho0v-man]

Maybe I should have gone into investment banking.

I think I need a psychiatrist after skimming through that.

I believe they prefer to be called “physicians trained in the specialty of psychiatry”.

 

[WhittyPsyche]

These terms could be dehumanizing, but I will also say that it can also make people feel like they are part of a tribe or it's important to their identity, that the experience of their disease is central to their identity.

I don't want to be a "birthing person," I'm going to be a mother. I'm not just a person experiencing birth or parenthood.

I could use other examples.

This isn't meant to invalidate people who don't like these terms and want change. Just another side and another way of looking at it.

I agree that wherever possible we should respect what language patients and families prefer.

Some pushback inevitably comes as well though, when you want to affect jargon of a group. I think it's good to acknowledge that and why some physicians talk the way they do in the workroom, but within reason. And find a way to navigate that, that can honor physicians as well as non-physicians, both in and out of the workroom or within their hearing.

Again, I don’t personally have a horse in the race in regards to “birthing person” but I don’t think that it has anything to do with the experience of birth being central to identity. As far as I know that actually has to do with giving a 1. Female gendered term to someone who is giving birth who may not identify as such, 2. Giving a loaded term, “mother”, to someone that may see their role as simply birthing (for another couple/parent) in the case of surrogate, or in a planned adoption in which that usage could be traumatizing.

I guess the question would be, do you think someone who gave birth and never raised a child (adopted, surrogate) is a mother? Is mother an accurate term for someone who birthed a child but raises that child as their father (trans/gender fluid/other)?

The above, unlike being called a diabetic and identified by your disease, is actually making broad assumptions on your lifestyle and parenthood, it actually has little to do with the actual birth when you remove the gendered parenthood. So I would say, why not let people identify as they wish.


This is already done in OB, you don’t identify the patient as a 44 yo mother, you state their sex and GTPAL/etc. Right there we identify everyone by their fertility and birthing lol

 

[DD214]

Are you black?

Someone didn't do their homework

According to the AMA, "black" is no longer acceptable

"Black" must be capitalized in order to correct for centuries of multifaceted oppression

 

[WhittyPsyche]

Someone didn't do their homework

According to the AMA, "black" is no longer acceptable

"Black" must be capitalized in order to correct for centuries of multifaceted oppression

Congratulations! You missed the point.

 

[Lawpy]

The question is pretty simple actually. I am asking about your identity because it is obvious to me that you find those terms, like “blacklist” to be utmost ridiculous. You’ve said as much in this thread.

I, personally, am not going to die on the hill of changing the name blacklist but what is obvious to me in your response is you do not consider those terms remotely hurtful, likely because you do not have the lens to ever be on the other side. And of course you wouldn’t. I venture to say you aren’t black.

I say this because black children grow up learning these terms, that you obviously deem benign, and they question the pattern. They ask why is it that all the bad things are always associated with black and all the good things are associated with white. Black children at a young age want to identify themselves as brown/dark brown because that’s what they see on their skin and are told no, you are black. So there is an external force to make sure they know the term is black, whilst learning all the other ways in which that term is used in society, negatively. If you’ve actually experienced yourself/witnessed a child having this realization, you would easily be able to visualize the pain.

As parents, people of color have to explain away all the things that their child shouldn’t take to heart, and accept it as just something that is throughout their childhood. That’s what they’ve done for generations. In recent years, there has been a movement that says wait, why do black people and other people of color have to accept these terms of engagement, why do they have to accept their identity, their blackness, being tied to a thousand negative/repulsive/degrading/whatever terms why don’t white people have to accept anything but positivity as being associated with whiteness? After all none of these terms are central to the English language, in fact in almost all these cases they were colloquial/vernacular/slang that were later adopted. Then, just as easily they could be eliminated and we could adopt/adapt to new ones.

So I ask that question to you, why can’t different terms be adopted if they consistently associate one group of society as undesirable? Why not? Because it would be annoying?

The answer is to reduce implicit bias to end the notion of white = good and black = bad, not to change the words themselves because of a supposed racial implication.

 

[doomer_md]

Obviously the solution is to infantilize everything because grown adults aren’t comfortable with scary words. Instead of “whitelist” we should have “nice-list” and instead of “blacklist” we should use “naughty-list.” ‘Tis the season after all.

 

[WhittyPsyche]

The answer is to reduce implicit bias to end the notion of white = good and black = bad, not to change the words themselves because of a supposed racial implication.

Great you recognize the implicit bias. How do you reduce the implicit bias of black= bad, white= good, if all the language employing those words use definitions that signify exactly that.

Are you actually saying there is some abstract way to reduce implicit bias in action but have an entire language with those associations fully employed? Please enlighten me.

 

[DD214]

Congratulations! You missed the point.

No, I just made an example of you trying to defend this tripe released by the AMA

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

It's not a strawman. It's directly listed in the AMA document that adds completely absurd suggestions to what is otherwise a reasonable recommendation. The AMA is undermining its own case

It’s a cherry picking argument. You are implying that because getting rid of the terms “blacklist” and “whitelist” might be absurd, the whole thing is absurd, which just isn’t true. You can ignore the ridiculous suggestions and still enact the overall message.

 

[Lawpy]

Great you recognize the implicit bias. How do you reduce the implicit bias of black= bad, white= good, if all the language employing those words use definitions that signify exactly that.

Are you actually saying there is some abstract way to reduce implicit bias in action but have an entire language with those associations fully employed? Please enlighten me.

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

 

[Lawpy]

It’s a cherry picking argument. You are implying that because getting rid of the terms “blacklist” and “whitelist” might be absurd, the whole thing is absurd, which just isn’t true. You can ignore the ridiculous suggestions and still enact the overall message.

My point is the AMA is undermining its own message and whitelist/blacklist was just one of many examples in that document. The AMA was also going on an anticapitalist rant.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

The answer is to reduce implicit bias to end the notion of white = good and black = bad, not to change the words themselves because of a supposed racial implication.

So you’re putting the impetus on the black population to just not feel badly about those terms. That seems reasonable.

 

[WhittyPsyche]

No, I just made an example of you trying to defend this tripe released by the AMA

No actually you didn’t. I’m surprised you are so proud of yourself. I already said, this isn’t my hill to die on, but it’s easy to spot when someone lacks the ability to acknowledge the perspectives of others.

My writing on a message board does not require me to abide by all the rules of the English language (capitalization) in order for a point to be valid. Your focus on trivializing my point does nothing to validate your position and only serves to make you look ridiculous.

 

[Billiam95]

I think the AMA is making a grave mistake stepping outside of its intended role - to advocate for physicians and medical students. I see no standing for the AMA to wade into what are obviously political arguments for one side and to alienate 50% of its membership. I am not a member but had been contemplating joining before seeing this - however, I have no interest in funding what I see as SJW-nonsense. I'll save the money and re-up for another year with PPP.

 

[WhittyPsyche]

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

I don’t think you actually understand the etymology of most words that employ black and white. You seem to think they were created in a vacuum and now people are retroactively employing racial meaning to them. That is simply not the case.

An entire vernacular around “red” as racial epithet was created from white Europeans encountering Native Americans in the US.

You actually use the word “ordinary” which is testament to the fact that the words don’t impact you in anyway so you see this as unnecessary. Yet, people are saying an entire language built with negative connotations around someone’s racial identity can be harmful, or better yet can be changed to be neutral by simple word choice. And you oppose because there are also other things that have to change?

While you seem to recognize the vast work needed in the sphere of racial equity, you are attempting to use the “there are bigger problems” siren to stop a simple change on a small step that may actually be helpful to the people that experience it. Why do you get to determine what is of value to change when you don’t suffer from the implications of the words?

 

[WhittyPsyche]

I think the AMA is making a grave mistake stepping outside of its intended role - to advocate for physicians and medical students. I see no standing for the AMA to wade into what are obviously political arguments for one side and to alienate 50% of its membership. I am not a member but had been contemplating joining before seeing this - however, I have no interest in funding what I see as SJW-nonsense. I'll save the money and re-up for another year with PPP.

It is really interesting that America equates anything related to someone’s identity as “politics”. Also, why does this alienate 50% of the membership? Who is the group you are referring to?

 

[Lawpy]

So you’re putting the impetus on the black population to just not feel badly about those terms. That seems reasonable.

What? I'm saying racializing the grayscale doesn't make sense. There's also words like blackberries, blackboards, blacksmiths etc with no clear negative connotations.

If we're going to racialize the grayscale, we'd also need to know what exactly gray represents. Because the racial equivalent of gray is definitely not brown which faces just as bad racial stigmatization as black.

What would be more productive is to stop using white as a prototype for decision making, especially in medicine

 

[DD214]

My writing on a message board does not require me to abide by all the rules of the English language (capitalization) in order for a point to be valid.

You're not paying attention and as I said before it is obvious you didn't do your homework

This isn't about the rules of the English language, it is about blatant PC overreach championed by the AMA which calls for "Black" to be capitalized and "white" to always be written in lowercase

Please do yourself a favor and read 1984 by George Orwell. You'll learn something

 

[Lawpy]

I don’t think you actually understand the etymology of most words that employ black and white. You seem to think they were created in a vacuum and now people are retroactively employing racial meaning to them. That is simply not the case.

An entire vernacular around “red” as racial epithet was created from white Europeans encountering Native Americans in the US.

You actually use the word “ordinary” which is testament to the fact that the words don’t impact you in anyway so you see this as unnecessary. Yet, people are saying an entire language built with negative connotations around someone’s racial identity can be harmful, or better yet can be changed to be neutral by simple word choice. And you oppose because there are also other things that have to change?

While you seem to recognize the vast work needed in the sphere of racial equity, you are attempting to use the “there are bigger problems” siren to stop a simple change on a small step that may actually be helpful to the people that experience it. Why do you get to determine what is of value to change when you don’t suffer from the implications of the words?

So let me understand. Yellow and brown also face racial stigmatization. Is your suggestion to redefine any words associated with red, yellow, brown and black that can potentially have any negative meaning associated to it?

There are deeper changes that need to be done to make any progress in racial equity. Medicine is still using white as a prototype for decision making. That's a massive problem in itself and something that needs to be addressed urgently. Of course, if the idea that the lingustic uses of colors have their history of negative connotations based on stereotypes is true, then the language would need to change.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

So let me understand. Yellow and brown also face racial stigmatization. Is your suggestion to redefine any words associated with red, yellow, brown and black that can potentially have any negative meaning associated to it?

There are deeper changes that need to be done to make any progress in racial equity. Medicine is still using white as a prototype for decision making. That's a massive problem in itself and something that needs to be addressed urgently. Of course, if the idea that the lingustic uses of colors have their history of negative connotations based on stereotypes is true, then the language would need to change.

What racial negative association is there with yellow?

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

What? I'm saying racializing the grayscale doesn't make sense. There's also words like blackberries, blackboards, blacksmiths etc with no clear negative connotations.

If we're going to racialize the grayscale, we'd also need to know what exactly gray represents. Because the racial equivalent of gray is definitely not brown which faces just as bad racial stigmatization as black.

What would be more productive is to stop using white as a prototype for decision making, especially in medicine

You’re missing the point.

 

[Goro]

https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/ama-aamc-equity-guide.pdf

The AMA recently released this equity guide focused on how words nobody finds problematic are now problematic. For example, the term "diabetic" is dehumanizing - the correct term is "person with diabetes." I wonder if this was concluded after surveying diabetics and finding that the majority consider the term dehumanizing, or because a small handful of academics decided it was. The term "whitelist" or "blacklist" is also racist now, because it exemplifies white privilege, somehow.

Please discuss in what I'm sure will be a fruitful discussion.

SPF and dumpster fires, here we come!!!

 

[Lawpy]

You’re missing the point.

No i understood the argument that the words blacklist, blackmail etc carry the meaning of black = evil which reinforces the negative stereotypes. I was saying it's an instance of trying to racialize a language that didn't have a racial meaning but apparently that's not the case if the idea that these words were created with the negative stereotype in mind

What racial negative association is there with yellow?

It's used as a racist slur against Asian Americans and multiracial people.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

No i understood the argument that the words blacklist, blackmail etc carry the meaning of black = evil which reinforces the negative stereotypes. I was saying it's an instance of trying to racialize a language that didn't have a racial meaning but apparently that's not the case if the idea that these words were created with the negative stereotype in mind

You’re still missing the point.

It's used as a racist slur against Asian Americans and multiracial people.

The only person I’ve ever heard call an Asian yellow was another Asian. But apparently some dude just used it at a talk about racism lol.

Edit: just so people stop replying to this, I am aware that “yellow” is a slur against Asians. I’m just saying I have never heard it used other than literally one person. Not denying it is a slur.

 

[Lawpy]

I think the AMA is making a grave mistake stepping outside of its intended role - to advocate for physicians and medical students. I see no standing for the AMA to wade into what are obviously political arguments for one side and to alienate 50% of its membership. I am not a member but had been contemplating joining before seeing this - however, I have no interest in funding what I see as SJW-nonsense. I'll save the money and re-up for another year with PPP.

The AMA doesn't care about advocating for physicians, otherwise they would've fought off the midlevel lobbying campaign long time ago.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I think the AMA is making a grave mistake stepping outside of its intended role - to advocate for physicians and medical students. I see no standing for the AMA to wade into what are obviously political arguments for one side and to alienate 50% of its membership. I am not a member but had been contemplating joining before seeing this - however, I have no interest in funding what I see as SJW-nonsense. I'll save the money and re-up for another year with PPP.

Why should using preferred language that doesn’t offend or dehumanize patients alienate any physician? Are your political beliefs so deeply rooted that you’re offended that patients don’t like being referred to by their disease and would rather keep making them feel bad just to stick it to the “woke culture?”

 

[Lawpy]

You’re still missing the point.

The only person I’ve ever heard call an Asian yellow was another Asian. But apparently some dude just used it at a talk about racism lol.

If someone is actually upset and is dehumanized by the use of the words (especially in a doctor-patient setting), then not using the words is the only reasonable approach. But again, that's what i literally said in the early posts agreeing with not using the words "diabetic" and "asthmatic". I asked Moko about whether they saw anyone offended by blacklist/whitelist for a reason (to see if they share similar stigmatization).

But that wasn't my argument. That's the point of being mindful in using language and not offending people which i agreed. My point is the AMA took this legitimate suggestion and added a lot of absurd nonsense that diluted and weakened its message. And linguistically speaking, i was viewing blacklist/whitelist in context of a grayscale that had no racial meaning. If that's factually wrong, i'll reevaluate.

 

[Goro]

The AMA doesn't care about advocating for physicians, otherwise they would've fought off the midlevel lobbying campaign long time ago.

"Association" is a more polite term than "Union"

I just read through the document. Saw a lot that makes sense, but also stuff that made me think "WTF!" I sense, sadly that this will give Tucker Carlson and his ilk five years worth of material.

 

[Lawpy]

"Association" is a more polite term than "Union"

I just read through the document. Saw a lot that makes sense, but also stuff that made me think "WTF!" I sense, sadly that this will give Tucker Carlson and his ilk five years worth of material.

That's exactly my point