The predominant influences on health are social or upstream factors. Poverty, inadequate education, insecure and toxic environments, and inferior opportunities for jobs and positions are inequitable disadvantages that adversely affect health across the globe. Many causal pathways are yet to be understood. However, elimination of these social inequalities is a moral imperative of the first order. Some physicians by word and deed argue that medical doctors should oppose the “structural violence” of social inequalities that greatly shorten lives and wreak so (...) much suffering. (shrink)

The paper summarizes recently published data and recommendations about healthcare disparities experienced by African Americans who have Medicare or other healthcare coverage. Against this background the paper addresses the ethics of such disparities and how disadvantages of vulnerable populations like African Americans are typically maintained indecision making about how to respond to such disparities. Considering how to respond to disparities reveals much that vulnerable populations would bring to the policy-making table, if they can also be heard when they get there. (...) The paper argues that vulnerable populations like African Americans need fair representation in bodies deciding what to do about such disparities and that fairness requires proportional representation at all levels of decisions that affect healthcare – a radical change. In this decision setting, howto provide adequate protection of minorities needs much further attention. The most attractive decision-making model is deliberative democracy. The paper shows that in deliberation, fair representation requires not only having a voice in decisions, but a fair hearing of those voices. Achieving a fair hearing requires changes in norms of communication and training of all to give importance to greetings and other measures of civility and trust building, and to be open to diverse forms of expression. Decisions about how to respond to healthcare disparities would include what programs to initiate for whom, howto evaluate the programs, and what to do in response to such evaluations. Conclusions are that achieving such goals will take a sea change in how healthcare institutions and providers do their business, and that social activism at every level will be needed to effect these changes. The discussion highlights many ethical issues that need much greater attention. (shrink)

I argue that there has been inadequate attention to and questioning of the dominance and normativity of whiteness in the cultural construction of bioethics in the United States. Therefore we risk reproducing white privilege and white supremacy in its theory, method, and practices. To make my argument, I define whiteness and trace its broader social and legal history in the United States. I then begin to mark whiteness in U.S. bioethics, recasting Renee Fox's sociological marking of its American-ness as an (...) important initial marking of its whiteness/WASP ethos. Furthermore, I consider the attempts of social scientists to highlight sociocultural diversity as a corrective in U.S. bioethics. I argue that because they fail to problematize white dominance and normativity and the white-other dualism when they describe the standpoints of African-American, Asian-American, and Native-American others, their work merely inoculates difference and creates or maintains minoritized spaces. Accordingly, the dominant white center of mainstream U.S. bioethics must be problematized and displaced for diversity research to make a difference. In conclusion, I give several examples of how we might advance the recommended endeavor of exploring our own ethnicity, class, and other social positioning and norms operating in U.S. bioethics, briefly highlighting "white talk" as one challenge. (shrink)

To promote so-called cultural competence in work of direct-care providers and other health professionals among diverse peoples, cross-cultural training is now widely advised. However, in ethically assessing aims and content of CCT, and surrounding issues and concerns, what should guide us? And if we can elaborate satisfactory moral touchstones, what do they imply for healthcare professionals, overarching structures, and bioethicists? Building on prior work, this paper tries to help answer these questions.

The problems of racism and racially motivated violence in predominantly African American communities in the United States are complex, multifactorial, and historically rooted. While these problems are also deeply morally troubling, bioethicists have not contributed substantially to addressing them. Concern for justice has been one of the core commitments of bioethics. For this and other reasons, bioethicists should contribute to addressing these problems. We consider how bioethicists can offer meaningful contributions to the public discourse, research, teaching, training, policy development, and (...) academic scholarship in response to the alarming and persistent patterns of racism and implicit biases associated with it. To make any useful contribution, bioethicists will require preparation and should expect to play a significant role through collaborative action with others. (shrink)

First published: 2010; Previous edition: 2012..