"This hardly needs any evidence, we all know discrimination is real, part of US culture and thriving as it does here. We hear the same type of procrastination over our collective response to climate change. Denigrating his opinion as merely an anecdotal claim says more about your value system than his."

"Knowing" (How does one know without evidence?) racism is real and being able to point to specific trends, practices, events etc. as a basis for where we need to make changes are two different things. Stating that racism is alive and well in the USA is hardly worthy of an article.

"An article written in "The Conversation, hardly qualifies as a "thesis". Since the first day this site opened it has never promised to be more than a conduit between academia and the public. It may be better to complain to the moderator on issues you find offensive and demand it change to suit your values."

As I pointed out in my above comment, one of the mottoes of this site is "Academic rigour, journalistic flair", one of the distinguishing features of this site, a large part of the reason why I enjoy the articles here so much is because the authors will point you in the direction of data, the literature, their own research etc. unlike Fairfax et al.

The whole reason I bothered to comment the first time is because I came into the article expecting some statistics on treatment regimes between black patients and white patients or differences in survival rates or morbidity or outcomes or...something. What we got was 3% of US doctors are black (a shocking statistic no doubt!) and a black medical student was depicted as a gorilla by his university at an official function...from that we extrapolate that the US medical establishment is racist?

I don't doubt it is but I would like to see some hard data or studies or a look at some of the reasons why only 3% of doctors are black etc. That's all, don't think it's asking too much

Dan Abrahmsen" Stating that racism is alive and well in the USA is hardly worthy of an article" This is an amazing statement, but understandable. Not every one carries the value system of John Hobberman.

Your opinion about needing to be provided with a rigorous list of references when the article discusses human values systems is interesting. Prof John Hoberman is an academic of high standing, all his 'thesis' and opinions are easily searchable. This is clearly an opinion piece, hardly worthy of criticism if he has not directed an undiscerning reader to links. The protest reminds me of the dialogue during one of Jane Elliot's sessions. http://youtu.be/XAv8JA_9uKI?t=4m39s

Where did my comment mention 'racism' Dan?
Craig Ventor provided access to the genetic tool box, it has been established race is a construct of language well suited to the un-evolved in the US. The article is about discrimination at a very high level, something inherent in the medical system regarding many issues. All this criticism has done is divert attention from the very real problem of discrimination by a privileged group in the community.

"Dear Paul, .... I direct you to Mark Harrigan's excellent comment just above yours. He says pretty much everything I would have." Well Dan that is disappointing you hold his values : /
Because, excuses for complaining any writer "whet your appetite" for more, are still an excuses. Prof John Hoberman wrote a book on this articles subject. "The Conversation" provided the tittle and publisher below the article, like all writers he deserves to be paid for his effort. Expecting a 80,000 word 'thesis' for 'free' or links is unrealistic and unfair. Generally readers here know how to use keyword searches regarding research and get on with their due diligence.
But most importantly how has this winging contributed to the debate on discrimination?
My comment stands that complaining about 'references' was a moderator issue. If you were offended by the response imagine how the writer felt about yours?

Dan Abrahmsen wrote;" ....the article COULD have contributed if only the editors had have sent it back ....." This interesting. Critiquing the 'editors' does not help your excuse of not complaining, neither does breaking longstanding online etiquette shouting using caps.
Dan Abrahmsen wrote; " You've ....... accused people of being racists ... That's inappropriate I feel and I'd appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of racism." This response is a projection. For the second time; when did I call you or anyone a racist?
Appreciate the reply confidently sharing your values, can only recommend a look at your interior, but keeping it private.

@ Paul Richards. It's plain you are unable to refrain from personal attacks. I note you have not addressed the facts of my criticism of the artilce (not it's premise but it's substantiation of it or illumination off the topic).

As for "my values" - you haven't a clue what they are and it is presumptious and insulting to imply you do or that they are somehow to be demeaned ot that others should be taken to task for sharing them

Apparently plain english is ot clear to you.

I do not know if Dan Abrahmsen shares my values - but he, and others, have levelled a critique at the article because it present little or no evidence to support it's claims. Namely thaat the inequalities in outcomes for blacks are due to medical racism as practiced by physicians in the USA

Indeed, having done further reading by the author I find that he is well able to establish inequalities in outcomes and treatments for the black minority in the USA but fails completely to establish whether or not such inequalities are due to racism on the part of treating physicians.

Indeed he even refuses to countenance that such poor outcomes may be due a broader issue being that blacks have a generally poorer socio-economic and educational status in the USA and lays the blame at the foot solely of racism (whether overt or subconscious) of the medical profession.

Yet the data, esepcially in America, is far more complex

http://www.apa.org/about/gr/issues/socioeconomic/ses-health.aspx

"Issues of low SES and poverty affect individuals and families of all racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds in the United States. While Non-Hispanic Whites are currently the largest single group of impoverished in the United States, ethnic minority groups are overrepresented among those living in poverty" and "Research suggests that both physical and mental health are associated with SES. In particular, studies suggest that lower SES is linked to poorer health outcomes."

and here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1381054/

"RESULTS: Compared with Whites, African Americans report higher rates of hypertension, diabetes, and arthritis, while Hispanics report higher rates of hypertension and diabetes and a lower rate of heart conditions. Accounting for differences in education, income, and wealth had little effect on these prevalence differences. In general, among those with chronic diseases, African Americans and Hispanics reported worse function than Whites. This disadvantage was eliminated in every case by controlling for socioeconomic status. CONCLUSIONS: While socioeconomic status, including wealth, accounts for much of the difference in functional status associated with these chronic diseases. It plays a relatively small role in explaining differences in the prevalence of chronic disease, possibly reflecting different causal pathways."

Which means that higher SES receives better treatment but race clearly has a big impact on prevalence. Why? Is it because of medical racism? Or is it because of poorer lifestyle and education levels - which may be due to a broader racism (for which we can agree the evidence is abundant)

In Australia the issue is well canvassed here

http://www.aihw.gov.au/socio-economic-disadvantage-and-health/

"A number of studies have shown that there is an association between socio-economic disadvantage and health. The mechanisms by which socio-economic status influence health status are complex and varied. Also the association between socio-economic status and health is not always straightforward; it is confounded by many factors. It is often hypothesised that a number of inter-related factors including education, place of residence, health beliefs and behaviour, occupation, income, access to health services and the environment in which people live determine the socio-economic disadvantage and health."

The point is that anyone who was genuinely concerned about the issue would want to actually find out and study what the root cause (or causes) of the issue was so that appropriate interventions could be made.

I suspect it is far more complex than just medical racism by medical practitioners - which I do not doubt exists and should be tackled - but I wonder if this is the pareto are of action? I do not think the author has established this to be the case.

Dear Paul,

You certainly implied it by saying I did not share the values of an author writing on race issues and linking to the blue eyed/brown eyed experiment.

As for my use of caps...

For your future reference:

THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE USE OF CAPS TO "SHOUT" AT SOMEONE

This is an appropriate use of caps for the purpose of EMPHASIS in a sentence written where italics cannot be used.

You could also write the above sentence like the below one but I chose not to.

This is an appropriate use of caps for the purpose of *emphasis* in a sentence written where italics cannot be used.

Happy new year

Mark Harrigan wrote; "Indeed, having done further reading by the author I find that he is well able to establish inequalities in outcomes and treatments..." Good this is pleasing to read.
Value systems are personal even 'hidden', we learn over time from observation and discusion about others levels of though or values. Discovering we share different values allows the opportunity to be tolerant of people and not discriminate. Projecting your values onto my response helps establish your values, so genuinely appreciate the reply confidently sharing them. The authors values are his and can be appreciated for what they are as he outlined in this brief article. His opening sentence makes it clear; "The racially biased treatment of patients is a grievous violation of medical ethics and a direct threat to the dignity of the profession." Strong criticism by the author and levelled directly at the value system of medical professionals. Value systems are not accurately quantifiable, as they are carried within and any metrics on them is very subjective. As the AMA is one of the most powerful lobby groups acting as a union in the world, it takes courage of conviction to take them on. Critiquing the author over a lack of references to AMA behaviour when 'discrimination' is largely unfalsifiable, was petty in a short article. Any offence to calling you on it was yours to escalate. Prof John Hoberman
may be desensitised to this type of academic criticism due to the nature of his writing, but others may not be.
As for any perception of personal attack; critiquing the authors article in a 'public forum' like "The Conversation" could be seen as a 'personal attack' on him. If a similar 'public' response to your comments offends you, recommend initially addressing the forum moderator privately about your need for references on such a short article in the future. Possibly just asking an author a question might work, most would be happy to reply.
Your response to the 'defence' of the author has not been offensive personally, wishing you well this year and many more.

Dan Abrahmsen wrote; "As for my use of caps......... For your future reference "
Taking a good look around the articles here, caps for emphasis are rarely used, the long standing global convention of not using caps is largely respected.
Your current use of " ... *emphasis*... " works, even it is also rarely used. Shouting is an extreme form of verbal emphasis and it is 'common knowledge' caps are the limit of emphasis in online text.
If you feel wronged, just dismiss the observation and carry on. Wishing you well this year and many more.

Off topic, apologies.

[ This set of values linked, is inclusive and a limit has been reached - http://goo.gl/CTTPB ]

interdisciplinarianism? or possibly because he's written a book on the subject. although to date he appears to have specialised in issues around sport, culture & race (see wiki), this one seems not radically outside his established ambit. while i have read about this subject issue in other places, i too would have appreciated some more links. a.v.

It's much more complicated than that, and in fact, the ones who can get treatment in places like California are the rich or the very poor via Medicare (who also pay no taxes). It's the middle class and 20s-30s age groups that suffers.

As a fellow Australian citizen (with dual citizenship) I can tell you that simply do not understand the role that the social and financial structures of the US play in medical care---tell me how you would run a health care system in California where the state is billions of dollars in debt, has at least 10 million illegal aliens from Mexico who currently receive free medical care while paying no form of taxes, and has an insurance system that makes medicine no longer a viable profession for physicians themselves.
Your assertion that paying for a surgical procedure would cost you your life in the States is an exaggeration and nothing more--plenty of people pay for these procedures with insurance and people still travel from around the world to receive medical care in the US.

You should consider the external forces that shape the medical system before thumbing your nose up at the system. Articles like this only serve to further push inaccuracies about the US medical system.

The above comments remind me of the dialogue at one of Jane Elliotts exercises.
Appreciate the links posted Daryl.

Thanks Daryl, appreciate the effort.

Just to be clear, I don't have a gripe with the author or his work so much as the fact that, when submitted, the editors here didn't take one look at the article and send it back with a request to add some references such as you are providing now...in the comments.