Addressing Anti-Black Racism in Bioethics: Responding to the Call

A Public Health Ethics Framework for Populations with Limited English Proficiency

25.6 Million people in the United States have Limited English Proficiency (LEP), defined as insufficient ability to read, write, or understand English. We will (1) Delineate the merits of approaching language as a social determinant of health, (2) highlight pertinent public health values and guidelines which are most relevant to the plight of populations with LEP and (3) Use the COVID-19 pandemic as an example of how a breakdown in public health ethics values created harm for populations and patients with LEP. We define a framework to tease out public health responsibilities given some populations' limited proficiency in a society's predominant language. The American Public Health Association (APHA) public health ethics core values serve as a framework to interrogate current practices. We use the COVID-19 case to illustrate gaps between health policy and healthcare disparities experienced by populations with LEP.

Racial Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Bioethics: Recommendations from the Association of Bioethics Program Directors Presidential Task Force

Recent calls to address racism in bioethics reflect a sense of urgency to mitigate the lethal effects of a lack of action. While the field was catalyzed largely in response to pivotal events deeply rooted in racism and other structures of oppression embedded in research and health care, it has failed to center racial justice in its scholarship, pedagogy, advocacy, and practice, and neglected to integrate anti-racism as a central consideration. Academic bioethics programs play a key role in determining the field's norms and practices, including methodologies, funding priorities, and professional networks that bear on equity, inclusion, and epistemic justice. This article describes recommendations from the Racial Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (REDI) Task Force commissioned by the Association of Bioethics Program Directors to prioritize and strengthen anti-racist practices in bioethics programmatic endeavors and to evaluate and develop specific goals to advance REDI.

Bioethicists Today: Results of the Views in Bioethics Survey

Bioethicists influence practices and policies in medicine, science, and public health. However, little is known about bioethicists' views. We recently surveyed 824 U.S. bioethicists on a wide range of ethical issues, including topics related to abortion, medical aid in dying, and resource allocation, among others. We also asked bioethicists about their demographic, religious, academic, and professional backgrounds. We find that bioethicists' normative commitments predict their views on bioethical issues. We also find that, in important ways, bioethicists' views do not align with those of the U.S. public: for instance, bioethicists are more likely than members of the public to think abortion is ethically permissible but are less likely to believe compensating organ donors is. Our demographic results indicate the field of bioethics is far less diverse than the U.S. population-less diverse even than other academic disciplines-suggesting far more work needs to be done to build an inclusive field.

Physician Perspectives on Responding to Clinician-Perpetuated Interpersonal Racism Against Black Patients with Serious Illness

BACKGROUND

Racism negatively affects clinical outcomes in Black patients, but uncertainty remains among physicians regarding how to address interpersonal anti-Black racism incidences involving them to facilitate racial healing and promote accountability.

OBJECTIVE

Elicit physician perspectives on addressing concerns from Black patients about interpersonal racism involving them or their team.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-one physician subspecialists at an urban academic medical center.

APPROACH

We conducted one-on-one semi-structured interviews to help inform the development of a clinician-facing component of a program to address the distress of racism experienced by Black patients with serious illness. We asked clinicians to describe experiences discussing racism with patients and identify additional resources to support these conversations.

MAIN MEASURES

Physician perspectives, including barriers and facilitators, to promote racial healing and clinician accountability when discussing clinician-perpetuated interpersonal racism with Black patients.

KEY RESULTS

Of the 21 participating physicians, 67% were women with a mean age of 44.2 years and mean of 10.8 years of experience as an attending physician. Four identified as Asian, three identified as Black, and 14 identified as White. Participants largely felt unprepared to discuss racism with their patients, especially if the harm was caused by them or their team. Participants felt patients should be given tools to discuss concerns about racism with their clinicians, but worried about adding additional burdens to Black patients to call out racism. Participants believed programs and processes with both patient- and clinicians-facing components had the potential to empower patients while providing resources and tools for clinicians to engage in these highly sensitive discussions without perpetuating more harm.

CONCLUSIONS

Addressing and improving communication about interpersonal racism in clinical settings are challenging. Dual-facing programs involving patients and clinicians may help provide additional resources to address experiences of interpersonal racism and hold clinicians accountable.

Why Causation Matters: Rethinking "Race" as a Risk Factor

Although it is tempting to construe the correlation between Black "race" and higher rates of preterm birth as causal, this logic is flawed. Worse, the continued use of Black "race" as a risk factor for preterm birth is actively harmful. Using Black "race" as a risk factor suggests a causal relationship that does not exist and, critically, obscures what actually causes Black patients to be more vulnerable to poorer maternal and infant outcomes: anti-Black racism. Failing to name anti-Black racism as the root cause of Black patients' vulnerability conceals key pathways and tempts us to construe Black "race" as immutably related to higher rates of preterm birth. The result is that we overlook two highly treatable pathways-chronic stress and implicit bias-through which anti-Black racism negatively contributes to birth. Thus, clinicians may underuse important tools to reduce stress from racism and discrimination while missing opportunities to address implicit bias within their practices and institutions. Fortunately, researchers, physicians, clinicians, and medical staff can positively affect Black maternal and infant health by shifting our causal paradigm. By eliminating the use of Black "race" as a risk factor and naming anti-Black racism as the root cause of Black patients' vulnerability, we can practice anti-racist maternity care and take a critical step toward achieving birth equity.