After reading “A Notoriously Syphilis-Soaked Race” and “Diseased
Race, Radicalized Disease”, there was an issue that caught my attention. Both
articles talked about the release of statistics and data aimed at different
races and genders affected by diseases, like Syphilis in this case. I feel that
if the statistics are released, there can be a risk of exploitation in
communities around the medical world. A link to a website is provided about the
reported cases of syphilis in 2011. Is this a problem in presenting statistics
based off of an ethnic group or race? Do you think the report is essential for public
knowledge to prevent spreading of the disease even in present day?
Another point I thought would be
interesting to debate was about how the white physicians were informed about
the autopsies performed on those that were infected with the disease but not
African-American physicians. This also appeared in the “Diseased Race” article
from the presentations that the ASHA gave to the white communities and the
African American communities. While the white communities were warned about the
spread of Syphilis in the African American community, there was no warning
about the spread of the same disease in the white community. Clearly the
African-American community was obstructed from the truth about the diseases and
the public was misinformed. Do you agree or disagree and why?
Darren Pope
Your first question is rather interesting. I think releasing such data would have more negative consequences than positive ones. The main problem is that such data could be used to exploit other races and areas. If one demographic was found to have more cases per capita than other factions, this could be used to oppress and stereotype the former faction. I also don't necessarily think releasing such info helps solve diseases. Diseases are adressed at an individual level and disease is cured by examining the disease itself. There is no need to collect and release based on race or demographic; it can only be used to stereotype, oppress or blackmail. I think the best strategy, if indeed these reports are needed, is to release them just to medical professionals who have practical use for them.
ReplyDeleteI agree that both communities were misinformed. It's interesting how you mentioned that white communities received no indication of the spread of syphilis. Was it because reporting that a disease associated with African-Americans, and which was spreading, would be an insult to white people? Or was it because they simply didn't want white people to panic?
It is horrifying to know that our history in this country is the way it is. It is even worst to think of all the undocumented happenings that have occurred in the past. As for your question I would agree. This was a clear indication of a pure violation of basic human rights almost no consent at all. It is just sad that our history is decorated with decades of horrorable acts from humans on humans. Why did America develop like this, it is almost past the point of racism and more into just pure hatred toward other human beings.
ReplyDeleteIt's definitely discrimination towards African-Americans and it may have not been direct, but since the study was conducted before, during, and after the Civil Rights Movement, I feel that there was such little access for African-Americans to actually be informed since they were segregated in every aspect of daily life.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with that these points do seem to fit into the category of discrimination although it may not have been direct. Considering this did happen before the civil rights movement I'm sure that has a big impact on the case. Although this may be the case, I don't think it is fair to the blacks to be treated this way because they are seen of the carriers and the spreaders of this disease, and the researchers only want to study the blacks so they can prevent whites from getting it.
ReplyDelete