Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-01-2013, 08:58 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,000,767 times
Reputation: 6128

Advertisements

Social deprivation - whatever that no doubt liberal inspired term means - claims the life of 450 breast cancer victims a year, according to a Cancer Research study.

Quote:
"These avoidable deaths are not due to differences in the response to treatment, or the type of breast cancer," said Dr Gary Abel, statistician at the University of Cambridge and author of the study. "Rather these are deaths that might be avoided if cancer was caught as early in women from deprived backgrounds as those from more affluent backgrounds."
Quote:
"People are much more fearful of serious illnesses in a deprived community, perhaps more so than in more affluent areas where better access to accurate information allows people to know that cancer isn't necessarily a death sentence," said Dr Simon Abrams, a GP in Everton, which has the most deprived population in England, according to Department of Health indicators. "There is a lack of information about symptoms and also a fear factor that is quite substantial," he told The Independent.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...r-8918283.html

Now, we all know that "deprived" is a code word for "black, brown, or non-white", while "affluent" is a code word for "white", no matter the fact that many non-white people are affluent, and many white people are deprived, and this is true in England as well as the USA.

Don't we always hear that non-white people are "warmer" and more socially connected than those "cold" "anti-social" white people who are supposedly the source of all the non-white people's ills?

If that is so, then how can any of these people cited be socially deprived?

Can someone answer that question and/or explain how the conclusions of this study make an iota of sense?

Last edited by Harrier; 11-01-2013 at 09:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-03-2013, 10:24 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,000,767 times
Reputation: 6128
No one wants to touch this one with a ten foot pole?

Is it really too much to be critical of the use of terminology?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 10:42 PM
 
Location: Riverside
4,088 posts, read 4,386,889 times
Reputation: 3092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
No one wants to touch this one with a ten foot pole?

Is it really too much to be critical of the use of terminology?
Maybe people think your post is incoherent? (Just a guess...)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 10:44 PM
 
Location: WA
4,242 posts, read 8,773,186 times
Reputation: 2375
It's awkward word usage. The "social deprivation" in this context is not related to anti-social behavior. It's "economic deprivation".

It's a UK publication. I wonder if it would make more sense to a Brit?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 10:48 PM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,080 posts, read 14,320,050 times
Reputation: 9789
Evidently, Harrier didn't quite understand the article.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 11:00 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
21,537 posts, read 8,719,477 times
Reputation: 64783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post

Now, we all know that "deprived" is a code word for "black, brown, or non-white", while "affluent" is a code word for "white"
No, we don't all know that.

People who are poor and uneducated, no matter what color they are, tend to be less likely to be well-informed about health issues, seek preventive care, get screened for diseases or advocate for themselves once they become ill. All these factors can lead to less favorable medical outcomes.

I am white, and I saw this happen with my own mother. She was raised on a ranch in a big family where you suck it up and don't complain when you're sick. So she always put off going to the doctor until she was really ill, which made her condition that much harder to treat. Like many people in the lower socioeconomic classes she had no interest in nutrition or exercise, she smoked and she held some really (sorry, Mom) ignorant beliefs. For example, she had high blood pressure and congestive heart failure, but when a blood test showed a low level of sodium in her blood, she proclaimed that she didn't have to watch her salt intake any more "because the doctor says I'm low on salt."

Another common behavior among people who are disadvantaged, especially older people, is that they tend to idealize doctors as being all-knowing and take everything they say as gospel. A complicating factor is that they may live in small towns or rural areas where they may not have access to the best medical care. For example, my stepfather had urinary difficulties for months and was brushed off every time he visited his small-town doctor and told that it was nothing. Trusting the doctor's reassurances, my stepfather continued to suffer. Eventually his discomfort became a medical emergency when he was unable to urinate at all and had to be rushed to the emergency room for emergency prostate surgery. Because his doctor was an idiot and my stepfather was to naive to realize he was entitled to a second opinion, he was left incontinent for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 11:14 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,000,767 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayarea4 View Post
No, we don't all know that.

People who are poor and uneducated, no matter what color they are, tend to be less likely to be well-informed about health issues, seek preventive care, get screened for diseases or advocate for themselves once they become ill. All these factors can lead to less favorable medical outcomes.

I am white, and I saw this happen with my own mother. She was raised on a ranch in a big family where you suck it up and don't complain when you're sick. So she always put off going to the doctor until she was really ill, which made her condition that much harder to treat. Like many people in the lower socioeconomic classes she had no interest in nutrition or exercise, she smoked and she held some really (sorry, Mom) ignorant beliefs. For example, she had high blood pressure and congestive heart failure, but when a blood test showed a low level of sodium in her blood, she proclaimed that she didn't have to watch her salt intake any more "because the doctor says I'm low on salt."
Harrier does the same thing, and he is rather well educated, although it could be that he spent an inordinate amount of time at the doctor's office for the first 20 years of his life, and is just happy to be free from going there.

Or it could be that when he scheduled a doctors appointment when he was in his early 20's, after not having to go anymore, the doctor asked Harrier why he was there.

In any event, Harrier is healthy, physically active, weighs below average for his height, has normal blood pressure, does not smoke, and is still reasonably young(though he has thought for some time that he will die before the age of 40).

When Harrier needs to see a doctor, he will do so, and hopefully won't be rebuffed like he was 15 years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 11:24 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,000,767 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurbie View Post
Maybe people think your post is incoherent? (Just a guess...)
The only thing incoherent in reference to this thread is the liberal term "social deprivation".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 11:26 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,000,767 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlenextyear View Post
It's awkward word usage. The "social deprivation" in this context is not related to anti-social behavior. It's "economic deprivation".
Then why wasn't the term "economic deprivation" used instead of "social deprivation"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 11:35 PM
 
2,687 posts, read 2,184,864 times
Reputation: 1478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
Then why wasn't the term "economic deprivation" used instead of "social deprivation"?
Because it's Britain and words and phrases often mean something different than they do in the United States. In the US, social deprivation is often synonymous with social exclusion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top