Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts

Sunday, August 2, 2020

Institutionalized racism and violence and the impact on people's health

I recently wrote about the confluence of the COVID-19 pandemic and its greatly disproportionate impact upon poor and minority communities, and the increasing awareness of the overall oppression of minority communities that has come to a head in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd by the police in Minneapolis, along with the huge protests (and police repression of those protests) around the country (‘Structural racism, structural violence and COVID-19: We must fight both epidemics’). This incredibly important and deserves not only further discussion here but ceaseless discussion in all venues until the US really changes.

Minority communities in the US (and for the rest of this piece, “in the US” will be implicit) have always suffered a much great burden of chronic disease, much more limited treatment options, and worse health outcomes. It is not new with COVID-19. In addition, minorities have always suffered more police brutality, more incarceration and involvement in the criminal “justice” system, and more violent death. We live in a nation and a society that was built upon and perpetuates not just racist bias but a structure in which repression of minority people, especially people of color, and most especially African-Americans, is an intrinsic component. Police violence against Black people is not (solely) a result of the individual racism of the police officers inflicting it; it is the purposeful enforcement mechanism of institutional racism, which has always existed in the US: slavery, Jim Crow, mass incarceration. The White-run police state in apartheid South Africa was odious and obvious, and most Americans correctly identified its purpose, but our own similar structures seem to have been harder for many to see. This is partly because they have been less clearly stated in law (for at least a few decades), and in part because in South Africa, Whites are a small minority whereas here they are the majority (so far). But, if perhaps less obvious and to some degree less severely violent, our own society has always had racism built into its fabric.

Facts that must be acknowledged: Black people are victims of police violence, and are killed by police way out of proportion to their percentage of the population. Black men are involved in the “criminal justice” system at, at least, 3x the rate of White men. Black families have a net wealth of about 10% of White families. For years, decades, centuries, official policies, laws and de facto practices have relegated Black people to the back of the line, kept them from good jobs, housing, and education. Black men, even if they have money, or are doctors, or are off-duty police officers, are more likely to be stopped, harassed, arrested, injured or killed.[1]

Racism can take many forms; Dr. Camara Jones, a professor at the Morehouse School of Medicine and former President of the American Public Health Association (APHA), describes three broad types: institutionalized (which is what I am mainly discussing here), personalized (that expressed by individuals toward others), and internalized (the “self-hate” that victims of racism may begin to believe about themselves, in part at least)[2]. They are all important, and all affect the health of the victims, and all need to be addressed. We have increasingly seen campaigns aimed at raising (White) people’s awareness of unconscious (as well as conscious) bias.  This is good, and important, but our analysis needs to go far beyond the idea of individual bias, and understand WHY people have grown up with and maintain such bias.

The US was built upon the free labor provided by chattel slavery of African-Americans. Many of our “Founding Fathers” (e.g., Washington, Jefferson, Madison) were not only slaveholders, but plantation owners with huge numbers of slaves. Thomas Jefferson’s “agrarian ideal”, that our nation would be best off if its people were farmers, was either ironic or hypocritical; it was not Jefferson but his slaves who did the farming at Monticello. Compromises with slaveowners led to a Constitution whose flaws are now obvious; that each state has two senators, regardless of population, was intended to help the South. Thus today small states are overrepresented in the Electoral College (e.g., Wyoming has one congressional district and thus 3 electors, 5.5% of California’s 55, but its entire population is less than any of California’s 53 congressional districts). Indeed, the South wanted to count each slave as a person for the sake of the census, although they had no intention of letting them vote; the ‘3/5’ rule was a compromise. Of course, today it is the “conservatives”(really, racists) who say no to counting everyone, especially undocumented immigrants (a category that did not exist at the time of the Constitution).

The “race” (pardon the pun) is fixed; we do not all start from the same place; Blacks start with one hand tied behind their back (or one leg shackled?). It is not just in health or in police violence; the story of government-sponsored racism in housing is amazing and scary (as portrayed in this video). What is amazing is how persistent this has been.  On the death of John Lewis, a true American hero, some have discussed the role that the violence perpetrated by police on nonviolent protestors in Selma, AL, had on helping push the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law. Signing it, President Johnson noted that it had been over a century since the Emancipation Proclamation, but that in the South many Blacks still could not vote. Today, in 2020, it is more than half again as long and in the US – not only in the South – strategies continue to be implemented to keep minorities from voting.

The negative impact of our racist infrastructure on the health of minority people is tremendous. Woolf and colleagues estimated that in the decade 1991-2000, all medical advances averted 176,000 death, but if African-Americans had the same death rate as Whites, over 686,000 deaths would have been averted![3] Park and colleagues demonstrated that Leukocyte Telomere Length, a marker of cellular aging indicating cumulative biologic stress, which equates to shorter lives, is indeed shorter in those who perceive the neighborhood they live in as poor quality, compared to those who perceived their neighborhoods as good quality.[4]

Our medical schools, on the front lines of training new physicians, rarely overtly address the pervasive, not occasional or individually-mediated, racism of our health care system. We still train students to start presentations including race (and gender) -- “A 53-year old Black male” – although in the US “race” is a social construct and the genetic variation within any “racial group” is far greater than that between different groups. A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine by medical student LaShrya Nolen uses the metaphor of the bulls-eye lesion of erythema migrans that characterizes early Lyme disease – in people with white skin. Because it is not as obvious in people with dark skin, the diagnosis is made later and complications are more common. She observes that we are “missing the bulls-eye” in addressing systemic racism in medical education.[5] In a New York Times Op-Ed, “Medical Schools Have Historically Been Wrong on Race” Dr. Damon Tweedy comments on the pervasive racism in patient care and education of physicians that is current as well as historical.

If we are to approach a system where there is truly health equity, we need to work simultaneously on many fronts. The health care delivery system, and its educational components, need to restructure from the ground up. Much more significantly, we need to address the Social Determinants of Health: access to safe housing, enough food, good jobs? Opportunity for a good education, not tied to the income of one’s parents through local school funding; all the things that make health worse and telomeres and lives shorter. We need to dismantle the police state that addresses protests against police brutality with more police brutality; to recognize that the police do not protect everyone equally, but primarily have the role of repression in some of our communities, and stop incarcerating such a high percent of Black males.

We are in a war for the soul of our nation. Will the racism of our history continue to dominate the reality of our lives, and continue to create and maintain inequity and poor health and death, or will we, finally, more than 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, really begin to address structural racism and its impact upon our health?

 


[1] Derrick CB, “Sirens: 4 decades of harassment by the police”, Guernica, July 27, 2020

[2] Jones CP, “Levels of Racism: A Theoretic Framework and a Gardener’s Tale”, Am J Public Health. 2000;90:1212–1215.

[3] Woolf SH, Johnson RE,Fryer GE, Rust G, Satcher D, ‘The Health Impact of Resolving Racial Disparities: An Analysis

of US Mortality Data’,  American Journal of Public Health | December 2004, Vol 94, No. 12,2078-81.

[5] Nolen, L, “How medical education is missing the bulls-eye”, N Engl J Med 382;26 nejm.org June 25, 2020

 

Sunday, October 22, 2017

Guns and the Public's Health: what can we do?

 "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Recognize those words? The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, what all the fuss is about. In addition to the confusing use of commas, apparently more generously applied in the 18th century, we have two key phrases. The final phrase, “shall not be infringed”, is read by the NRA and other “gun rights” zealots (and it is important to remember that only a minority of NRA members, and a smaller minority of gun owners, support this position) to mean essentially “no legislation regulating guns in any way”. That includes assault rifles, semi-automatic and maybe even automatic rifles, armor-piercing (“cop killer”) bullets, and any other weapon or gun modification that creative minds can come up with. Of course, it has been noted that none of these types of weapons were available at the time of the Constitution, when firearms were muzzle-loaded muskets, quite different from current weapons (see graphic).

The NRA take the position that there is qualitatively no difference, as noted by its President, Wayne LaPierre, after the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School: "Absolutes do exist. We are as ‘absolutist’ as the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution. And we’re proud of it!" Others (including me, in case you were wondering) would disagree, and say that clearly at some point the quantitative difference becomes qualitative. This is the only amendment they are absolutist about; the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…”, but it has long been settled that it is not OK to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

The other obviously important phrase is “A well regulated Militia”. Again, obviously, this has been the source of much discussion, with the NRA taking the position that “Militia” just means “everyone” (kind of a stretch), and (as far as I can tell) “well regulated” means, um, not regulated at all. Is this cherry picking the words one wants? Maybe, but I can’t imagine how it is possible to ignore completely the words “well regulated”. But does it matter? Yes, when we live in a country where
The 36,252 deaths from firearms in the United States in 2015 exceeded the number of deaths from motor vehicle traffic crashes that year (36,161). That same year, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 5 people died from terrorism. Since 1968, more individuals in the United States have died from gun violence than in battle during all the wars the country has fought since its inception.
-Bauchner et al., Death by Gun Violence—A Public Health Crisis, JAMA, October 9, 2017[1]

Those are staggering numbers, and certainly justify the assertion that it is a “public health crisis”.

The authors also note that “60.7% of the gun deaths in 2015 in the United States were suicides, a fact often ignored. That is a majority. A large majority. If it were an election, 60.7% would be considered a landslide. But with guns it is a mudslide of death. I have written before about suicide (e.g, Suicide: What can we say? December 13, 2013, Suicide in doctors and others: remembering and preventing it if we can September 14, 2014, Prevention and the “Trap of Meaning” July 29, 2009) and its impact on myself and my family, with my son’s successful suicide-by-gun at the age of 24. My son, to my knowledge, had never used a gun before his final act. He lived in a state and city with strict gun control laws (some of which, sadly, have been eliminated by the courts). He was nonetheless able to go to another state, buy a carbine (terrific choice! No permit needed, even in those days, like a handgun would require, but short enough to reach the trigger with the barrel in his mouth!), and use it. It would be easier now, in that state and many others.

My son was apparently very committed to this act, and was successful despite some obstacles. But for many, many people it is the availability of guns that make a spur-of-the-moment decision lethal. I have noted before that nearly 95% of suicide attempts by gun are lethal while less than 5% by drug overdose are. My clinical experience is that many suicide survivors do not repeat their attempts (though many do). The successful suicide rate for young adult males in low gun control states is several times higher than in high gun control states. And on and on.

But the epidemic of suicide and murder and mass murders resulting from the easy availability of guns has not changed the legal landscape. After the Las Vegas massacre, there was a small ray of hope that maybe one of the most egregious products the white terrorist Stephen Paddock used, the “bump stocks” that effectively convert semi-automatic to automatic rifles, might be limited; even the NRA voiced some possible support. But never underestimate the cowardice and lack of moral fiber of the Congress; Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has suggested that this be done by regulation rather than legislation. This is absolutely because it will not require any congressperson to actually vote for it and thus be targeted by the zealots in the next election. Hopefully, not literally targeted by guns, but do not forget Gabby Giffords and Steve Scalise!

Dr. Bauchner, who is the editor-in-chief of JAMA, also joined the editors of several of the other most prestigious US medical journals, New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and PLOS Medicine in an editorial that appeared in all their journals (this link is the the NEJM), ‘Firearm-Related Injury and Death — A U.S. Health Care Crisis in Need of Health Care Professionals’.[2] Again, this emphasizes the fact that guns are a public health epidemic in the US, and that there is little likelihood of anything being done at the federal level to stem its carnage. It recognizes that there is a variable response at the state level, with some states going as far as trying to legally prohibit physicians from asking about guns in the home (Florida; since struck down by the courts) while others have had stronger regulations. Many legislatures have also acted to prevent the cities in their states from acting independently to regulate guns in any way. One of the most insane was the state of Arizona suing to prevent the city of Tucson from destroying guns seized from criminals. The legislature mandated that they be sold – thus keeping them on the streets – and the Arizona Supreme Court upheld this, saying state law trumped local ordinances!

Given this situation, the joint editorial suggests that there are many things that physicians can and should do, including (quoted):
·        Educate yourself. Read the background materials and proposals for sensible firearm legislation from health care professional organizations. Make a phone call and write a letter to your local, state, and federal legislators to tell them how you feel about gun control. Now. Don’t wait. And do it again at regular intervals. Attend public meetings with these officials and speak up loudly as a health care professional. Demand answers, commitments, and follow-up. Go to rallies. Join, volunteer for, or donate to organizations fighting for sensible firearm legislation. Ask candidates for public office where they stand and vote for those with stances that mitigate firearm-related injury.
·        Meet with the leaders at your own institutions to discuss how to leverage your organization’s influence with local, state, and federal governments. Don’t let concerns for perceived political consequences get in the way of advocating for the well-being of your patients and the public. Let your community know where your institution stands and what you are doing. Tell the press.
·        Educate yourself about gun safety. Ask your patients if there are guns at home. How are they stored? Are there children or others at risk for harming themselves or others? Direct them to resources to decrease the risk for firearm injury, just as you already do for other health risks. Ask if your patients believe having guns at home makes them safer, despite evidence that they increase the risk for homicide, suicide, and accidents. [this is what the Florida law would have made illegal]
·        Don’t be silent.

The first (JAMA) editorial says:
Guns kill people….the key to reducing firearm deaths in the United States is to understand and reduce exposure to the cause, just like in any epidemic, and in this case that is guns.

The fact is that while physicians have influence and moral authority, so do other health professionals, and, in fact, so do all of us. So the advice must pertain to all of us.

Don’t be silent.





[1] Bauchner H, Rivara FP, Bonow RO, Death by gun violence—a public health crisis, JAMA online Oct 9, 2017, doi:10.100/jama.2017.16446
[2] Taichman DB, Bauchner H, Drazen JM, Laine C, Peipert L, Firearm-Related Injury and Death — A U.S. Health Care Crisis in Need of Health Care Professionals’, October 9, 2017DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe1713355

Total Pageviews