John Ruffin, former head of the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities wrote:
"The 19th-century scientist and pathologist Rudolph Virchow gave voice to many of our present-day concerns about disparities and went a long way toward defining the task before us. A socially minded man, he believed that science should speak the language of the common people and that medicine should serve the public's health. He wrote, 'If medicine is to fulfill her greatest task, then she must enter the political and social life…'"
Do you agree and why? Is it permissible for scientists to become advocates in the areas of their research? What steps can one take to balance advocacy with the objectivity that is considered the ideal in scientific inquiry?
I think it'd be hard pressed for anyone to say that they disagree with this statement especially after taking this class. I often think about another one of Virchow's often-cited quote "The physicians are the natural attorneys of the poor, and the social problems should largely be solved by them." and I really do believe this to be true. I believe that physicians who see patients of all walks of life give a voice and have an opportunity to lend a collective power to patients. Physicians have a front row seat to the societal failings on a daily basis, and can offer insight to patients on how their situations are not isolated incidents but rather the results of a society that does not prioritize their needs. The question on how one can balance advocacy with the objectivity is a good one, as physicians as much as any other human being are prone to the cognitive error of fitting evidence to their beliefs rather than the other way around. In my opinion, the most important step is sharing and being open to dialogue with people very different from ourselves who offer new and different perspectives that we may not have considered. By keeping ourselves open and attempting objectivity to these conversations, it offers a way to keep our opinions and our preconceptions balanced.
Please describe an of controversy for health disparities research that you learned about in this course, or alternatively an area of research that should be prioritized in health disparities. Include why you find this area interesting or controversial.
With the rising public concerns about COVID-19, there have been increasing discussions around health care access and disparities in the news and in general public discussion. Before, the repercussions of an underinsured individual not seeking necessary medical attention due to fear of cost was usually limited to the individual patient. However, now that a person sick with COVID-19 could be avoiding care due to fear of cost could actually inadvertently lead to further spread of the virus changes the issue to a public health risk. States all over the country including NY and CA have announced free COVID-19 testing for all, but many have pointed out how states do not have the jurisdiction to govern employer-based health coverage so the policy should really be enacted at the federal level. This question of whether health care coverage should be universal in the United States has re-entered the national conversation for the past several years, especially as Medicare For All has gained popularity among voters, except now it has the added lens of framing universal health coverage as necessary to minimize spread of an infectious disease. It'll be interesting to see in coming months how the research around health care coverage and its associated disparities will be continue to evolve as the country attempts to control this epidemic.