Racial And Socioeconomic Factors
Racial and socioeconomic factors, however, are not independent of each other, as we have seen. Minorities, and in this paper I discuss African Americans mostly, have less access to jobs and education, thereby reducing their access to adequate or good health insurance, which then limits the type and amount of health care they can receive. Additionally, as we discussed in class, individuals classified as minorities have less opportunities than the White majority in part, at the very least, due to racial discrimination, implicit or explicit. The data and research indicate that health and equal treatment has become (or has always been) secondary to an individual’s physical and cultural characteristics. None of this is an attempt at minimizing
…show more content…
the role biology plays in medical treatment because individuals do have biological and chemical differences from one another. However, in order to identify and understand health inequality in breast and lung cancer treatment and diagnosis (or really in any health issue), we cannot afford to remove social causal factors from the situation.
I chose to discuss SES and race/ethnicity and their affects on cancer diagnosis and treatment because these attributes generally dictate how individuals are treated in American society, unconsciously or otherwise. For instance, historically, Black people have been looked at as inferior in many social aspects; those who do not earn enough money may not be able to afford to send their children to colleges or afford health insurance. As we have learned in this class, all of these social issues exist and persist because they constantly perpetuate and reify one another. Therefore, these two topics of discussion help me in determining the social causes of the health inequalities that are present in cancer treatment and diagnosis. Furthermore, in this paper, I assume SES, race, and ethnicity to be defined by their standard definitions. I understand that this is problematic because standard/”normal” definitions are not entirely inclusive and that in this class we have learned to recognize and combat such generalizations. Truthfully, having and using “non-standard” definitions would enhance the discussion as I could address more of the issues present in society. However, research conducted in this country is still very much based on normalized social constructs and binaries.
It is assumed, for instance, that when we look at research from the CDC or other sources, a “female” is one genetically determined as a female at birth.
This kind of rigidity is pervasive throughout all types of research. I assume that having certain groups to choose from, like White or Black or Asian reduces statistical confusion; it is easier to group people together and observe them as a whole. However, through grouping, we reduce individuals to characteristics that the whole represents. It would be most beneficial if “new approaches to breast cancer research…reflect the diversity of women living and dying with the disease”(Anglin, 2006). Researching people and their lives outside of their socially dictated labels, as Mary Anglin suggests doing in her chapter on breast cancer in Gender, Race, Class, and Health, would provide more comprehensive research and would most likely show us even greater disparities in cancer diagnosis and treatment because people are incredibly complex beings, racially and socioeconomically. For instance, what qualified as “White” one hundred years ago is now even harder to define, but surveys and research continue to try and reduce people into these incredibly difficult to define categories. Even though grouping is problematic, the research studies in this paper are still helpful in the identification of a problem; the data clearly show that health gradients correspond with racial and socioeconomic gradients. It is true that the results may be too simplistic, but they are a good place to begin the discussion of a health issue. Flexibility is desired and necessary, but until research reflects more fluid definitions, I cannot make an argument in this paper including more
fluidity.
One area of inequality that I did not choose as a focus for this paper is the gender argument. According to the CDC, men in general have higher incidence and death rates from lung cancer than women, yet these rates are declining. For women, however, these rates have been steady for many years (Lung cancer rates by race and ethnicity, CDC, 2015). It is worth noting that White women are more likely to have and to die from lung cancer than black women (Lung cancer rates by race and ethnicity, CDC, 2015). With regard to social inequalities, this seems to be counterintuitive because White women have better access to health care and have more means to maintain good health. However, the difference in rates between Black and White women is not as drastic as the one observed between Black and White men (Lung cancer rates by race and ethnicity, CDC, 2015). This statistic for females might be an exception since the American Cancer Society stated in its report that “Blacks are more likely than other racial/ethnic groups to be diagnosed with cancer” and “…are more likely to die of cancer” (ACS CAN, 2009). However, a variety of reasons could be, and most likely are, responsible for the unequal spread of lung cancer between men and women and between women of different races. The gender argument and how it intersects with SES and race/ethnicity would probably reveal even more interesting social causes of the health inequalities seen in breast and lung cancer diagnosis and treatment, but my main focus was the intersectionality of SES and race.
Despite excluding gender and keeping in mind that social categories, to which we are all a part of, are too difficult to define, one thing is very clear: health and social inequalities in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment are very similar to those found in lung cancer, and until inequalities in society and between different types individuals are addressed and ameliorated, minorities and those in lower socioeconomic levels will continue to face inferior health care. This very real issue highlights that “medicine” is no longer something to be approached by only biomedical means; health has to do with social life, environmental situation, income level, education level, among many other factors, and to achieve good health for all people, society must combat inequalities at all levels.
the role biology plays in medical treatment because individuals do have biological and chemical differences from one another. However, in order to identify and understand health inequality in breast and lung cancer treatment and diagnosis (or really in any health issue), we cannot afford to remove social causal factors from the situation.
I chose to discuss SES and race/ethnicity and their affects on cancer diagnosis and treatment because these attributes generally dictate how individuals are treated in American society, unconsciously or otherwise. For instance, historically, Black people have been looked at as inferior in many social aspects; those who do not earn enough money may not be able to afford to send their children to colleges or afford health insurance. As we have learned in this class, all of these social issues exist and persist because they constantly perpetuate and reify one another. Therefore, these two topics of discussion help me in determining the social causes of the health inequalities that are present in cancer treatment and diagnosis. Furthermore, in this paper, I assume SES, race, and ethnicity to be defined by their standard definitions. I understand that this is problematic because standard/”normal” definitions are not entirely inclusive and that in this class we have learned to recognize and combat such generalizations. Truthfully, having and using “non-standard” definitions would enhance the discussion as I could address more of the issues present in society. However, research conducted in this country is still very much based on normalized social constructs and binaries.
It is assumed, for instance, that when we look at research from the CDC or other sources, a “female” is one genetically determined as a female at birth.
This kind of rigidity is pervasive throughout all types of research. I assume that having certain groups to choose from, like White or Black or Asian reduces statistical confusion; it is easier to group people together and observe them as a whole. However, through grouping, we reduce individuals to characteristics that the whole represents. It would be most beneficial if “new approaches to breast cancer research…reflect the diversity of women living and dying with the disease”(Anglin, 2006). Researching people and their lives outside of their socially dictated labels, as Mary Anglin suggests doing in her chapter on breast cancer in Gender, Race, Class, and Health, would provide more comprehensive research and would most likely show us even greater disparities in cancer diagnosis and treatment because people are incredibly complex beings, racially and socioeconomically. For instance, what qualified as “White” one hundred years ago is now even harder to define, but surveys and research continue to try and reduce people into these incredibly difficult to define categories. Even though grouping is problematic, the research studies in this paper are still helpful in the identification of a problem; the data clearly show that health gradients correspond with racial and socioeconomic gradients. It is true that the results may be too simplistic, but they are a good place to begin the discussion of a health issue. Flexibility is desired and necessary, but until research reflects more fluid definitions, I cannot make an argument in this paper including more
fluidity.
One area of inequality that I did not choose as a focus for this paper is the gender argument. According to the CDC, men in general have higher incidence and death rates from lung cancer than women, yet these rates are declining. For women, however, these rates have been steady for many years (Lung cancer rates by race and ethnicity, CDC, 2015). It is worth noting that White women are more likely to have and to die from lung cancer than black women (Lung cancer rates by race and ethnicity, CDC, 2015). With regard to social inequalities, this seems to be counterintuitive because White women have better access to health care and have more means to maintain good health. However, the difference in rates between Black and White women is not as drastic as the one observed between Black and White men (Lung cancer rates by race and ethnicity, CDC, 2015). This statistic for females might be an exception since the American Cancer Society stated in its report that “Blacks are more likely than other racial/ethnic groups to be diagnosed with cancer” and “…are more likely to die of cancer” (ACS CAN, 2009). However, a variety of reasons could be, and most likely are, responsible for the unequal spread of lung cancer between men and women and between women of different races. The gender argument and how it intersects with SES and race/ethnicity would probably reveal even more interesting social causes of the health inequalities seen in breast and lung cancer diagnosis and treatment, but my main focus was the intersectionality of SES and race.
Despite excluding gender and keeping in mind that social categories, to which we are all a part of, are too difficult to define, one thing is very clear: health and social inequalities in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment are very similar to those found in lung cancer, and until inequalities in society and between different types individuals are addressed and ameliorated, minorities and those in lower socioeconomic levels will continue to face inferior health care. This very real issue highlights that “medicine” is no longer something to be approached by only biomedical means; health has to do with social life, environmental situation, income level, education level, among many other factors, and to achieve good health for all people, society must combat inequalities at all levels.