I'm one of those people who doesn't mind if someone asks "Are you Chinese?" or "What country are you from?" Although, typically when the second question is asked, depending on whom the inquirer is, I would reply "I'm Canadian", knowing fully well that they had meant my ethnic background. At this point I wait for them to follow up with "No, I meant where did your parents come from?" or "What asian country did your family originally come from?" I don't mind at all. I get curious too and have often asked another those same questions.
However I do admit that I'm pretty particular about avoiding using the word "race". Though I'm not known for my political correctness, the very-Canadian side of me always shudders abit whenever I encounter this word, which has become frequent since I've begun my readings from my very-American epidemiology textbook. The numerous tables and figures in this textbook often categorizes health research results by age, gender, bmi and... race.
"Race" to me emphasizes physiological and genetic differences (may they be actual or perceived), and connotes superior vs. inferior, and divisiveness, while "ethnicity", which is what I'm more used to saying, connotes culture, heritage, and of course differences in physical traits; yet it seems to lack the air of prejudice that is typically associated with "race".
To what extent is race a determinant of health compared to other socio-cultural-economic factors?
There have been various studies on breast cancer that have found higher rates of the cancer among white women and lower rates in blacks and hispanics. Can these differences be attributed to race, or other factors known to be related to breast cancer like the number of children a woman has in their twenties, or the use of oral contraceptives. Studies also show that whites have higher survival rates compared to blacks and hispanics. Does that mean they are more resilient? Nope. It's because on average, a white person in the United States is more likely to have access to medicare, which leads to higher chances of early diagnosis, treatment and survival.
So maybe comparing race when conducting health research in a multicultural context is useful if you think of it as a sort of potpurri surrogate for socio-cultural-economic determinants.
I think it's interesting that on an individual basis we must not generalize and stereotype a person based on the color of their skin, but at a population level, all is fair in epidemiology.
3 comments:
When it comes to science and mathematics, there is no prejudice. You can simply replace Asian or black with Physiology X and Body Type Y and it wouldn't make a difference. But we know there is a difference between race and ethnicity.
Ever since I was a kid, I thought it was pointless swapping in words. Just because I say "fudge" rather than "fuck" doesn't mean jack because I meant the same thing. If there isn't any prejudice behind the words, asking what race you are or what ethnicity you are makes no difference. If there is prejudice, it makes no difference either. It all boils down to the intention behind the words.
If white's have higher access to health care then wouldn't that affect the stats? More white breast cancer may simply reflect that the system can only track instances of breast cancer in those people who can afford to use the system.
PS I agree w/ coder.
Well, in the US, poor people can still access publicly funded hospitals. They would just not go until they were really in trouble. It is really unlikely that people die of breast cancer w/o realizing that they have it. Also, even if you died without ever seeing a doctor, the medical examiner would do a brief examination to to figure out what to put down for causes of death on a person's death certificate. Therefore, the system does track almost everyone who've had it.
Post a Comment