How Does Racial Segregation Taint Medical Pedagogy?

Persistence of racial segregation makes equitable health care impossible for African Americans, as does the supra-geographic segregation perpetuated by enduring racial medical mythologies that remain unchallenged in health professions education. This article canvasses how these mythologies exacerbate myopia in health professions practice and education, maintain barriers, and perpetuate racial health inequity.

Limning the Semantic Frontier of Informed Consent.

It is the researcher's responsibility to provide accurate, complete, and unbiased verbal and written information yet, as this essay discusses, challenges to meaningful research consent abound in the communication between researcher and subject. This discussion of these challenges is far from exhaustive, but it will flag some of the potholes that researchers must anticipate on the sometimes rocky road to eliciting meaningful consent. These include, but are not limited to, inadequate scientific literacy, poorly written consent forms, and even the deployment of scientific terms and seductive acronyms like CURE and MIRACL. Studies with acronyms, for example, enroll five times as many patients as those without, are more likely to be published by prestigious journals, and have higher Jadad methodologic quality scores although they are no more likely to conclude with positive findings. Other barriers to researcher-subject communication include: widely differing beliefs and customs, semiotics, socioeconomic status, iatrophobia, and dramatically different histories of treatment in the medical-research arena.

Creating a segregated medical profession: African American physicians and organized medicine, 1846-1910.

An independent panel of experts, convened by the American Medical Association (AMA) Institute for Ethics, analyzed the roots of the racial divide within American medical organizations. In this, the first of a 2-part report, we describe 2 watershed moments that helped institutionalize the racial divide. The first occurred in the 1870s, when 2 medical societies from Washington, DC, sent rival delegations to the AMA's national meetings: an all-white delegation from a medical society that the US courts and Congress had formally censured for discriminating against black physicians; and an integrated delegation from a medical society led by physicians from Howard University. Through parliamentary maneuvers and variable enforcement of credentialing standards, the integrated delegation was twice excluded from the AMA's meetings, while the all-white society's delegations were admitted. AMA leaders then voted to devolve the power to select delegates to state societies, thereby accepting segregation in constituent societies and forcing African American physicians to create their own, separate organizations. A second watershed involved AMA-promoted educational reforms, including the 1910 Flexner report. Straightforwardly applied, the report's population-based criterion for determining the need for phySicians would have recommended increased training of African American physicians to serve the approximately 9 million African Americans in the segregated south. Instead, the report recommended closing all but 2 African American medical schools, helping to cement in place an African American educational system that was separate, unequal, and destined to be insufficient to the needs of African Americans nationwide.

Segregation, civil rights, and health disparities: the legacy of African American physicians and organized medicine, 1910-1968.

Between 1910 and 1968, the National Medical Association (NMA) repeatedly clashed with the American Medical Association (AMA) over the latter organization's racial bars to membership and other health policy issues. The NMA, founded in 1895 as a nonexclusionary medical society to provide a voice for disenfranchised black physicians and patients, struggled in its early years, during which AMA leadership took scant notice of it. But skirmishes ensued over such actions as stigmatizing racial labels in the AMA's American Medical Directory, which, beginning in 1906, listed all U.S. physicians but designated African Americans with the notation col. The NMA also repeatedly asked the AMA to take action against overt racial bars on blacks' membership in its constituent state and county societies. During the civil rights era, African American physicians received no AMA support in seeking legal remedies to hospital segregation. And the NMA and AMA found themselves opposed on other policy issues, including Medicaid and Medicare. These differences eventually catalyzed a series of direct confrontations. The 1965 AMA meeting in New York City, for example, was protested by about 200 NMA-led picketers. The NMA's quest for racial equality in medicine was supported by some other medical organizations, such as the Medical Committee for Human Rights. In 1966, the AMA House voted to amend the AMA Constitution and Bylaws, giving its Judicial Council (now the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs) the authority to investigate allegations of discrimination. This paved the way for a subsequent era of increasing cooperation and understanding.

African American physicians and organized medicine, 1846-1968: origins of a racial divide.

Like the nation as a whole, organized medicine in the United States carries a legacy of racial bias and segregation that should be understood and acknowledged. For more than 100 years, many state and local medical societies openly discriminated against black physicians, barring them from membership and from professional support and advancement. The American Medical Association was early and persistent in countenancing this racial segregation. Several key historical episodes demonstrate that many of the decisions and practices that established and maintained medical professional segregation were challenged by black and white physicians, both within and outside organized medicine. The effects of this history have been far reaching for the medical profession and, in particular, the legacy of segregation, bias, and exclusion continues to adversely affect African American physicians and the patients they serve.

Burning Love: big tobacco takes aim at LGBT youths.

Secret tobacco industry documents lay bare the industry's targeting, seduction, and recruitment of minority groups and children. They also unmask Big Tobacco's disdain for its targets.