The American Medical Association has just released "Advancing Health Equity: A Guide to Language, Narrative and Concepts," a strange document that calls for doctors to insert progressive politics into even plain statements of fact.
ama-assn.org/system/files/a…
2/ After the lengthy "Land And Labor Acknowledgement" -- new to me but apparently the evolution of the land acknowledgement -- the document quickly lays out guidelines that would make it very hard for doctors to write or speak clearly.
3/ For example, the word 'vulnerable' is out. You're not supposed to say "vulnerable groups," because this doesn't communicate progressive political beliefs. Try "Groups that have been economically/
socially marginalized."
4/ The document doesn't have any guidelines for doctors who don't think each and every instance of 'vulnerability' can be tied direcly to injusice, but that sort of seems to be the point: to expurgate any language that *could be interpreted* as anything but progressive.
5/ Another example I find telling: "People who do not seek healthcare" is to be replaced with " People with limited access to (specific service/resource)." But poor people don't always know what services they have access to -- this is a pretty well-known thing. So in some cases,
6/ yes, they fail to seek healthcare, and it just isn't quite accurate to say they don't *have access* to it. In an attempt to make sure the language is 1000% on board with a fairly coherent vision of progressivism, this guide makes it harder for doctors to speak clearly.
7/ I don't think any of this is binding, but it's really striking that the AMA would spend so much of its time creating a document trying to get everyone to sound like a graduate of an elite school, often at they expense of clarity and accuracy.
8/ Read literally -- and keep in mind that this style of writing and thinking is so muddled that you'e going to have a bad time if you do that -- the AMA seems to be saying that a paralyzed person who "does not identify as having a disability" is not disabled.
9/ An epidemiologist DMs to say "We are not allowed to call it 'violent victimization'. JAMA Psych forced us to call it 'subjection to violence' and JAMA Pediatrics 'experiencing violence'. ... harder for us to get cited by criminologists who won't search for the made up names."
10/ Using language that likely wouldn't be endorsed by many or most members of the group in question, for Inclusion.
11/ It's nice out and I'm going to touch grass, but last thing I'll say is that the weirdest corner of DEI provides a growing number of full-blown careers, and one of the ways these folks justify their professional existence is the backlash to their weird, stilted language.
12/ This AMA thing is obviously going to cause some outrage but the response to the outrage is never "Huh, maybe we should try to reflect mainstream America a bit more," but "This just proves people don't get it and require more Education." It's a very clever business model.
13/ Got two tabs open: Rapidly flipping between the AMA's guide to improving health equity by using stilted woke language and the garbage NY State Of Health page I'm force dto buy insurance from b/c the AMA helped fight off a public option
nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/…
14/ "The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.”
Really infuriating, man.
15/ ~55% of Americans support M4A (despite endless demonization), and ~68% -- an overwhelming majority by US political standards -- support a public option.
These policies are off the table because of powerful groups like the AMA.
nytimes.com/2019/02/23/us/…
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.