this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
283 points (99.3% liked)

News

36912 readers
2377 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

At issue is a once widely used test that overestimated how well Black people’s kidneys were functioning, making them look healthier than they really were — all because of an automated formula that calculated results for Black and non-Black patients differently. That race-based equation could delay diagnosis of organ failure and evaluation for a transplant, exacerbating other disparities that already make Black patients more at risk of needing a new kidney but less likely to get one.

A few years ago, the National Kidney Foundation and American Society of Nephrology prodded laboratories to switch to race-free equations in calculating kidney function. Then the U.S. organ transplant network ordered hospitals to use only race-neutral test results in adding new patients to the kidney waiting list.

Dr. Martha Pavlakis (of Boston’s Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and former chair of the network’s kidney committee) calls what happened next an attempt at restorative justice: The transplant network gave hospitals a year to uncover which Black kidney candidates could have qualified for a new kidney sooner if not for the race-based test — and adjust their waiting time to make up for it. That lookback continues for each newly listed Black patient to see if they, too, should have been referred sooner.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Melkath@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Because there are a slew of biological factors (such as predisposition to sickle cell anemia) that are more prevalent in black people than white people.

Don't factor race into medical evaluation, that's racist and you are killing black people. Factor race into medical evaluation, that's racist and you are killing black people.

It's a no win.

[–] Nepenthe@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Things like, say, an increased need for vitamin D supplements in colder climates, because you need sunlight to manufacture vitamin D to make serotonin and the increased melanin blocks what little sun is available way up north? Sure. That one is a difference off the top of my head that people really just don't think about.

Kidney function is provably not one of them and never was, so you're gonna have to fuck off with that. I usually make a conscious, concerted effort to be a better person than I was on reddit, but you already admitted in another comment that you don't know shit about medicine and you seem bothered in the opposite direction regardless.

So with the possibility of this topic being your emotional support knowledge base out of the picture, the only horse you logically seem to have in this is that seeing ethnic minorities demand that we stop allowing them to die by reason of nothing annoys you to have to listen to.

If that's not the case, I might be a bit quieter and rephrase everything you said forever, because it does not look like you want it to look. If it IS the case, get the fuck off my platform.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Sickle cell anemia would like a word. Some diseases are absolutely more prevalent in certain races. The problem is we as a society fail to distinguish between "being racist" and "acknowledging differences". You point out differences and suddenly you're racist, even if it is relevant. In this case, it seems not to be relevant and is good it is being removed. But let's not pretend there aren't factual reasons for it to exist in some crcumstances.

Another example is pulse oxygen monitors being worse on melonated skin. It's a result of the physical properties of the skin. Is it racist to acknowledge this and have different method for people with different skin types? Absolutely not.

Not everything is an identity issue. And it's not "your platform" you egotistical prick. Fuck off yourself.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

Another example is pulse oxygen monitors being worse on melonated skin. It's a result of the physical properties of the skin.

Bullshit. The problem is the creators of devices only tested them on white people so didn't adjust for differing refractive properties in coloured skin. Same goes with motion-detecting faucets.

Stop blaming the victim ffs.

[–] Melkath@kbin.social -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Continue to try to be a better person than you were on reddit.

I admitted I'm not a doctor and commented on the rhetoric. You came in acting like master of all racial doctoring, and with the same confrontational virtue signaling aggression I pointed out.

I highly doubt that any doctor is trying to kill black patients because they are racist.

Instead of "we detected a bad test and are trying to fix it, yay!" It's "yall racist fucks be killing us because you're racist. Why did you bring race into my Healthcare anyway?"

Answer to that question "because you just said 'you racist fucks won't consider my race and you treat us like white people, and that is killing us'."

It's never a productive conversation.

It's always "yall racist. I'm a victim of your racism. I'm a victim of you. Stand up, no, sit down, why yall standing? Look at you standing, so racist. If you werent racist youd sit down. Look at the racist just sittin' there. Stop victimizing me. Get on your belly. Why your racist ass on your belly? Oppressing me with your lying on your belly ass."

[–] scroll_responsibly@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Don't factor race into medical evaluation, that's racist and you are killing black people. Factor race into medical evaluation, that's racist and you are killing black people.

It’s a no win.

It’s not a game, it’s peoples’ lives. Treat patients as they are, factor in race when it’s relevant, and no reasonable person will think that you’re racist.

It’s only racist when one factors in race when it’s not relevant, thus harming patients.

[–] Melkath@kbin.social -2 points 2 years ago

It's called practicing medicine for a reason, and perhaps advancement isn't being made faster because no matter what the doctor practicing the medicine does, they are called a racist who is intentionally trying to kill them, so the doctors steer clear of the topics, and outdated measurements stay in use for decades.

Honestly, it reeks of excuses for malpractice lawsuits.