AAPA and Racism

[WeBuyAndSellJunk]

The main problem is that many people have politicized a topic in medicine that shouldn’t be politicized. People these days try to make everything a political issue. It divides us on topics that we shouldn’t be divided on. No where in either of the AAPA statements did they favor 1 political faction over another. We are PAs at the hospital, not republicans or democrats.

Racially-based health disparities exist. They are at the forefront of our thoughts right now, for good reason. They need recognized and addressed better in medicine. The AAPA made a statement somewhere along those lines and people are taking them to task for it. What? Imagine how selfish you need to be to try and call this in to question and then wagon-hitch anything, and especially something as controversial abortion, to the topic as some sort of virtue signaling and counterfactual to their point. You can argue all you want about why it happens, or who else it also happens to, but right now we are using our energies to try and fix at least this problem. If you can’t help, then at least don’t get in the way. 

[Cideous]

I guess I would point out that like the AMA does not speak for all docs, AAPA does not speak for all PA's.  If you don't like what they are saying, don't support them.  /shrug

[rev ronin]

6 minutes ago, Cideous said:

I guess I would point out that like the AMA does not speak for all docs, AAPA does not speak for all PA's.  If you don't like what they are saying, don't support them.  /shrug

Which is why AAPA's political clout (i.e., members and dollars) will decline as it picks sides in any particular fight.  If we want PAs to become extinct, then by all means, the AAPA should pick sides in every fight, regardless of how tangentially related to healthcare or the role of a PA.

[rev ronin]

On 6/6/2020 at 11:02 AM, Diggy said:

To equate medical induced abortion (an elective process) to racism and police brutality against people of color is irresponsible.

If you don't have any clue how abortion and racism, specifically racism targeting black people, have been historically linked in America (and the number of upvotes on your post suggest this is a shared historical ignorance), then I encourage you to read a bit on the topic. Or, if you would rather not read yourself, feel free to take my word that it's not at all an inapt question to raise.

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/11/27/margaret-sanger-was-eugenicist-why-are-we-still-celebrating-her

[WeBuyAndSellJunk]

21 minutes ago, rev ronin said:

Which is why AAPA's political clout (i.e., members and dollars) will decline as it picks sides in any particular fight.  If we want PAs to become extinct, then by all means, the AAPA should pick sides in every fight, regardless of how tangentially related to healthcare or the role of a PA.

You are assuming that this doesn’t generate interest or respect from people who aren’t currently members or stakeholders. I’d love to know the AAPAs percentage of membership capture amongst all PAs.
 

You are also assuming that one must remain neutral on all topics as an organization representing a larger body for fear of extinction. Imagine if we did that right now in the face of huge physician groups not supporting our advancement (yes, a really controversial topic). You pick and choose your battles. Staying neutral on abortion probably makes sense since the crux of the medical argument is still philosophical or religious in nature. Staying neutral on what are absolutely known to be some the most health-altering patient factors in the middle of a crisis is at best a waste of energy and at worst the equivalent a medical body being neutral about something like HIV and homosexuality (we’ve seen that before, huh?).  

[DiggySRNA]

45 minutes ago, rev ronin said:

If you don't have any clue how abortion and racism, specifically racism targeting black people, have been historically linked in America (and the number of upvotes on your post suggest this is a shared historical ignorance), then I encourage you to read a bit on the topic. Or, if you would rather not read yourself, feel free to take my word that it's not at all an inapt question to raise.

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/11/27/margaret-sanger-was-eugenicist-why-are-we-still-celebrating-her

I have a clue how Racism works in America because I fit the description of someone who looks suspicious in broad daylight. Abortion, not so much since I do not carry a womb.

I found it unnerving that the OP would think abortion is the MOST horrific thing, to the point that AAPA should focus elsewhere [or remain silent] instead of issuing a statement. Margaret Sanger's forced sterilization can be applied to today's society; white cops sterilizing the black population via death by bullets or in this case, death by asphyxiation.

Modern medicine has come a long way in how we assess, treat, and manage individuals. In 2020, medical induced abortion is not forced - it's an elective process. In 2020, Blacks and other people of color do not elect to be shot point blank or suffocated by cops in the street, then having said cops walk freely in society - or at best antagonized for minding their business. The OP's question shifts focus away from current events. That is my point.

The AANP also issued a statement and man, the responses nurses gave is nothing like what is happening on this board.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Diggy

[rev ronin]

39 minutes ago, printer2100 said:

You are assuming that this doesn’t generate interest or respect from people who aren’t currently members or stakeholders. I’d love to know the AAPAs percentage of membership capture amongst all PAs.
 

You are also assuming that one must remain neutral on all topics as an organization representing a larger body for fear of extinction.

Those two statements seem kind of contradictory to me.

Yes, it's possible that chiming in on a popular topic could endear the AAPA to people.  But considering there are already statements on racism and health disparities, I doubt very much adding more will attract any significant portion of folks.

And no, I don't think absolute neutrality on everything is indicated.  I am in favor of a 'big tent' AAPA that doesn't take stances on things NOT directly related to advancing the PA profession, because 1) I want it to do its job of representing ALL PAs, not just those who agree with certain political stance, and 2) I don't want it to alienate possible members.

This is particularly difficult in a very polarized society that has been baptized in rhetoric of denunciation and cancel culture.  Pick any topic, and those on one side will have something horrible to say about those who don't agree with them on all their points. Wither reasoned debate? Where is the allowance that others can, in good conscience, come to different conclusions on political or social topics without sprouting horns and smelling of brimstone?

 

[ANESMCR]

What tha? Not sure if anyone has pointed this out to the OP yet but...limiting access to women’s healthcare and rights to choose is racist and always has been. This has been proven time and time again. There are plenty of literature sources out there that substantiate this regardless of your religious or political beliefs. Such an odd/backwards statement. 

[rev ronin]

1 hour ago, ANESMCR said:

What tha? Not sure if anyone has pointed this out to the OP yet but...limiting access to women’s healthcare and rights to choose is racist and always has been. This has been proven time and time again. There are plenty of literature sources out there that substantiate this regardless of your religious or political beliefs. Such an odd/backwards statement. 

I posted a link that said just the opposite.  I'd be interested in reading your supporting literature.

[ANESMCR]

4 hours ago, rev ronin said:

I posted a link that said just the opposite.  I'd be interested in reading your supporting literature.

I will post as much as I can when I’m off work. In short, the article you posted and others alike are a red herring invalid talking point pushed by Jesuit, evangelical, and far right institutions and pundits. In fact the pro-life movement was in part founded by white supremacists in the 80’s and 90’s. Defund PP, take away reproductive rights from the very groups of people that depend on these services. By statistic alone, African American and Hispanic communities utilize these services 2-3x the rate of whites. Yet after it is all said and done there is only one group who still gets to utilize abortion and contraception when said community services are taken away and anti abortion laws are passed in the southern/midwestern states-those with money and the ability to travel. 

[mgriffiths]

On 6/6/2020 at 3:24 PM, MediMike said:

your proposal that an organization must address every problem or no problem is a hollow attempt at pushing your agenda.

As someone that is vehemently opposed to abortion and finds the claims that racism is increasing, or is as bad as even 10 years ago laughable, this really sums it up.  

NOTE: I am NOT saying that racism doesn't exist or isn't a significant issue, it ABSOLUTELY is, but there is a HUGE difference between SEEING racism more clearly due to technology and it actually occurring more.

[WakadanPA]

I may not have a place in this discussion because I'm a prePA student but I feel inclined to respond to this post. I have lurked on this forum for a few years and have read many debates regarding various issues, most about OTP and the name change. Not until reading this thread have I ever pondered, "Do I want to be a part of this professional group?"

I'm a woman, African American and a southerner. I know racism and sexism, they are close personal foes. I know the silence of my non-ethnic colleagues, it's often deafening, every time there is media attention focused on disparities or violence against black people. I'm frankly not surprised by some of the "its not my/PA/AAPA problem" responses but I am discouraged by them. How will I be treated by this group of professionals? How often will I have to advocate for patients against my own colleagues due to their prejudice/inherent bias? How quickly will I become the "angry black woman" to my PA peers? 

My suggestion to everyone regarding the letter is to self examine why you think the letter is a bad idea? And during that self examination ask yourself some other deeply personal moral questions. Why do I care so deeply about this letter? What have I done to help or harm? Why am I so shocked or disinterested in the recent events? Why am I avoiding? Have I reached out to my black friends or colleagues , why or why not? What will I say? Where do I get my information?

I'm not trying to start a debate or highjack the thread. I just want to not feel like I'm joining a group of professionals who think racism is a republican vs democratic political issue. Because it's not. The black community is America, not a separate place off in the bowels of the states. Its the same suburbs, country town, urban areas that exist all over the country which means it's felt in those suburban hospitals, country town urgent care ER hybrids and urban trauma centers. It's impossible for the issue to exist as simply a political talking point, it should be discussed openly and the AAPA should be a part of that discussion.

[sas5814]

You have a place in this conversation (and any other for that matter). The question isn't about racism or any other significant social issue. The issue is should an advocacy organization take sides in major issues? What are the pluses and minuses? You have a life experience and perspective that says yes. Others don't agree.

My concern is a simple and practical one. Has the AAPA lost some of its ability to advocate for PAs by involving themselves in a powerful and divisive issue? I can tell you already I have spoken to people who won't be renewing their membership because they feel it isn't something AAPA should do. Its not because these people are racist or don't care.... they just don't think it is AAPAs lane of traffic. If they take a stand on every divisive issue in the country and the world they are splitting their membership into separate camps every time.

OP tried to make a comparison of a similarly divisive issue and was hectored and heckled which pretty much illustrates the question. The fact that this thread continues is illustrative of the question.

Is making a socially conscious statement worth losing effectiveness in your primary purpose...advocacy? I'm assuming that will happen. I could be wrong. Maybe it will work the other way. >shrug<

[WakadanPA]

Thanks for responding. I understand the question OP raised. I don't understand why it is a question. I think that is the fundamental difference between the two different thought camps participating in this thread.

Regardless, I hope you read my original response and will implement some suggestions or that it was at minimum thought provoking of your own personal experiences.

Edited June 9, 2020 by NOLAPALady
Typos

[ANESMCR]

11 hours ago, rev ronin said:

I posted a link that said just the opposite.  I'd be interested in reading your supporting literature.

https://iwpr.org/publications/economic-effects-abortion-access-report/

https://rewire.news/article/2020/05/15/as-black-women-leaders-we-are-tearing-abortion-restrictions-down-in-virginia/

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/06/us/black-abortion-missouri.html

And many more accessible articles. Again the eugenics argument is a blatant red herring talking point pushed by the far right, fundamentalist, and white nationalists. It’s an attempt to masquerade their motivations as humanitarian rather than biblical, personal, and political. 

Edited June 8, 2020 by rev ronin
made links clickable

[rev ronin]

6 hours ago, ANESMCR said:

I will post as much as I can when I’m off work. In short, the article you posted and others alike are a red herring invalid talking point pushed by Jesuit, evangelical, and far right institutions and pundits. In fact the pro-life movement was in part founded by white supremacists in the 80’s and 90’s. Defund PP, take away reproductive rights from the very groups of people that depend on these services. By statistic alone, African American and Hispanic communities utilize these services 2-3x the rate of whites. Yet after it is all said and done there is only one group who still gets to utilize abortion and contraception when said community services are taken away and anti abortion laws are passed in the southern/midwestern states-those with money and the ability to travel. 

So is the Margaret Sanger quote I posted above fabricated? Do you not see how having brown and black fetuses aborted at a 2-3x greater rate than white fetuses (using your numbers) plays into the white supremacists' hands?  I see your links posted below, but I'd be really interested in seeing specific documentation for your the pro-life movement was founded by white supremacists, rather than just social conservatives.

[rev ronin]

1 hour ago, ANESMCR said:

https://iwpr.org/publications/economic-effects-abortion-access-report/

https://rewire.news/article/2020/05/15/as-black-women-leaders-we-are-tearing-abortion-restrictions-down-in-virginia/

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/06/us/black-abortion-missouri.html

And many more accessible articles. Again the eugenics argument is a blatant red herring talking point pushed by the far right, fundamentalist, and white nationalists. It’s an attempt to masquerade their motivations as humanitarian rather than biblical, personal, and political. 

Thanks for the links.  I encourage you to actually read all the way to the bottom of the third (NYT) link before asserting this is only of concern to "far right, fundamentalist, and white nationalists."

[rev ronin]

Would anyone mind if I split this thread to separate out the abortion-related posts?  Since I'm posting in this thread, I want to be completely transparent in any moderator tool use here.

[MediMike]

15 hours ago, rev ronin said:

And no, I don't think absolute neutrality on everything is indicated.  I am in favor of a 'big tent' AAPA that doesn't take stances on things NOT directly related to advancing the PA profession, because 1) I want it to do its job of representing ALL PAs, not just those who agree with certain political stance, and 2) I don't want it to alienate possible members.

I guess the major schism here is how you frame the thought of racism and police violence in America? Whether it is a "political stance" that you are for or against or whether it is a human rights issue. 

The recurrent theme being put forth on this post is that the AAPA should not be involved in such "politically divisive" issues as this. I'd ask that you did not politicize such a basic human rights issues as racism, it reflects poorly on us as a profession.  You want to give the AAPA more items on their plate to manage? Give the public a glance at this thread where we have  medical professionals arguing against their professional organization making a statement against racism, against demonstrating solidarity with those affected by it, and by suggesting a path towards a more equitable future in our field.

That is one way to guarantee a whole load of trouble.

[MediMike]

28 minutes ago, rev ronin said:

Would anyone mind if I split this thread to separate out the abortion-related posts?  Since I'm posting in this thread, I want to be completely transparent in any moderator tool use here.

I think as long the only posts removed are the one's explicitly discussing only abortion that would be appropriate, the posts related to the original comparison of abortion and racism should be left for contextual purposes.

[rev ronin]

29 minutes ago, MediMike said:

I think as long the only posts removed are the one's explicitly discussing only abortion that would be appropriate, the posts related to the original comparison of abortion and racism should be left for contextual purposes.

Hmm, that'd be a challenge, as several posts would be needed for both resultant topics/threads, and I don't have a 'duplicate thread' button, which would enable me to preserve certain posts in each.

[rev ronin]

44 minutes ago, MediMike said:

I guess the major schism here is how you frame the thought of racism and police violence in America? Whether it is a "political stance" that you are for or against or whether it is a human rights issue. 

The recurrent theme being put forth on this post is that the AAPA should not be involved in such "politically divisive" issues as this. I'd ask that you did not politicize such a basic human rights issues as racism, it reflects poorly on us as a profession.  You want to give the AAPA more items on their plate to manage? Give the public a glance at this thread where we have  medical professionals arguing against their professional organization making a statement against racism, against demonstrating solidarity with those affected by it, and by suggesting a path towards a more equitable future in our field.

That is one way to guarantee a whole load of trouble.

I mean, I don't mean to keep coming back to it, but the OP's point was that she perceived abortion to be a bigger minority human rights issue.  Can we agree we have some very, very different views on that within the PA community?  And that if AAPA comes down on any one side of that issue, it will alienate a significant number of PAs from being dues-paying members? No secret that AAPA lost my money and voice for 5 years over its arguably racist treatment of Dr. Carson.

Looking specifically at the final statement, I don't personally object to anything in particular about it.  The worst criticism I can come up with is that it appears to reallocate finite dollars away from general professional advocacy into this particular effort--TINSTAAFL, after all.  That is, there are far more GOOD things for AAPA to do than there are AAPA dollars and staff time to go around, and we're in a fight for our professional standing here.

[WeBuyAndSellJunk]

37 minutes ago, MediMike said:

I guess the major schism here is how you frame the thought of racism and police violence in America? Whether it is a "political stance" that you are for or against or whether it is a human rights issue. 

The recurrent theme being put forth on this post is that the AAPA should not be involved in such "politically divisive" issues as this. I'd ask that you did not politicize such a basic human rights issues as racism, it reflects poorly on us as a profession.  You want to give the AAPA more items on their plate to manage? Give the public a glance at this thread where we have  medical professionals arguing against their professional organization making a statement against racism, against demonstrating solidarity with those affected by it, and by suggesting a path towards a more equitable future in our field.

That is one way to guarantee a whole load of trouble.

Exactly my point. As a medical professional, this should not be viewed as a political issue. Be it what it is outside of the medical sphere, within it, it is a known and enormous factor regarding people’s health. It is the height of arrogance and almost malfeasance to let one’s political beliefs shape their views on topics that are not controversial within the world of medicine as a means to further your own agenda (i.e., abortion rights). It is easy to create thought experiments and draw parallels to highlight how mind numbingly ignorant one sounds to question such statements. E.g., AAPA endorses buprenorphine use. AAPA endorses treatment of hepatitis C. AAPA endorses treatment of lung cancers associated with smoking. AAPA endorses more investment in childhood education. Each of these is controversial in society. The PA or medical community wouldn’t blink an eye at these statements now though. If addressing race-related health disparities or poverty-related health disparities is political for you, you are the problem. I will buck the trend and tell you that I aim to continue supporting the AAPA because they aren’t afraid to make evidence-based statements to support patient care in the face of political pressure. That is the kind of leadership and courage we need going forward. Maybe it translates in to finally being courageous enough to push a title change or to stand up for our own profession too. 

[ANESMCR]

2 hours ago, rev ronin said:

Thanks for the links.  I encourage you to actually read all the way to the bottom of the third (NYT) link before asserting this is only of concern to "far right, fundamentalist, and white nationalists."

Never said that Rev. I said that is a common point pushed by those specific groups for the purpose of deluding and masking of ulterior motive. So, in my opinion, are only valid in the appropriate context.

Edited June 8, 2020 by ANESMCR

[hlj25950]

AAPA should absolutely make statements against racism, at a bare minimum. There are things all organizations can do to help make systemic and cultural changes that help lift up POC and address the inequities in our world. Health care as a profession needs to address our internal problems and treatment of BIPOC within our profession, ourselves, and our patients. The disparities within these systems and cultures and thoughts should be challenged and reformed. It is not enough to be neutral when people are being oppressed and murdered.

As a white woman, I know that I have privilege. I know that I have a lot to learn, and that I need to listen and support BIPOC in my personal and professional life. This isn’t political. This is human.

Black lives matter.