Research shows that the difference in pay between men and women may have a major impact on women’s mental health. Even after accounting for criteria like age, education, and career, women who earn much less than men are more likely to experience anxiety and sadness.

According to a recent Columbia University study, women experience sadness and anxiety at higher rates than males, which may be related to the gender wage disparity. When women see discrimination based on their gender, like the difference in pay between men and women, their risk of depression may go up.

Compared to men, women of color experience a bigger pay gap, which increases their stress, anxiety, despair, and poverty levels. Feelings of irritation, resentment, and low self-worth are among the detrimental effects of unequal compensation on mental health. How could it be any different when you see them devaluing your work against the work of others? Are these workers second-class citizens?

When women face discrimination in the gender pay gap, they may also have less education (or fewer opportunities for education), lower wages, fewer chances to lead, more caregiving responsibilities, and higher rates of domestic violence, all of which can hurt their mental health. Overall, the gender wage gap can be terrible for women’s mental health, so closing it is an important step toward achieving gender equality and improving women’s health.

I remember a time when colleges wouldn’t accept female applicants, which made women less likely to go to college. Why do you suppose Columbia University has Barnard College? Most of the major Ivy League schools wouldn’t accept women. Think Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Brown.

We can address the gender pay gap in a number of ways. Promoting pay transparency, which means making pay information public and ensuring companies explain pay differences, is one way to deal with this problem. Making sure that women are paid fairly and exposing and addressing pay inequality is a start. Promoting diversity and inclusion in the workplace is another way to combat biases and advance women in industries that are dominated by men.

We can also address the salary gap by implementing policy changes. Paid family leave laws can be put in place to lessen the motherhood penalty and making sure that women are not punished for taking time off to care for their families.

Employed caregivers are penalized in the current situation. Do we still love those who are elderly, sick, or young and need our help? The question goes without a need to respond.

The post The Gender Pay Gap Has Mental Health Implications appeared first on Medika Life.

We treat the patient in front of us. No matter who they are.

The Arkansas legislature decided to toss this principle tenet of healthcare out the window. 

Doctors and nurses in Arkansas can now refuse to treat patients based on moral or religious objections. Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson signed, The Medical Ethics and Diversity Act, SB 289, into law on March 26th.

The law states its purpose is “to protect all medical practitioners, healthcare institutions, and healthcare payers from discrimination, punishment, or retaliation as a result of any instance of conscientious medical objection.”

Health providers’ moral objections are the focus of the new Arkansas law, but the law does not protect patients from discriminatory practices from a healthcare provider. Instead, Governor Asa Hutchinson relies on federal law “that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, and national origin.”

The Arkansas Medical Ethics and Diversity Act, SB 289, does not include language protecting against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. 

Most media reports have framed the law as blatantly anti-LGBTQ legislation. The Human Rights Campaign fought against the bill because it allows doctors to refuse care for transgender and LGBTQ patients. Arkansas health providers can now legally refuse services to anyone based on a moral objection as long as it is not an emergency or violate federal EMTALA guidelines.

But the wording of the law goes way beyond issues of sexuality and gender. The law permits any healthcare provider to deny any medical services based on religious or moral objections.

ACLU of Arkansas Executive Director Holly Dickson pointed out the risks stating, “making it easier to deny people health care isn’t just wrong, it’s dangerous.” 

The Arkansas law fails to acknowledge one of the most challenging aspects of medical care. Doctors, nurses, and other healthcare providers work hard to avoid value judgments when providing care. We work to see all patients as worthy and try to avoid bias. 

Medical care is about placing value on each person’s life. Although challenging, health providers try to avoid considering patient culpability when treating people. Our personal feelings must be checked at the door. We treat the person in front of us. 

Pulmonologists do not refuse to treat or blame a chain smoker for getting lung cancer. Trauma surgeons treat drunk driving victims and the perpetrators equally. We do not refuse care to gang members who get shot or deny Covid-19 treatments to those who refuse to wear a mask. 

In Obstetrics and Gynecology, we provide care to pregnant women who use illegal drugs and prescribe PrEP therapy to those with multiple unprotected sexual partners. We don’t insert personal bias or value judgments into patient care. We try very hard to do exactly the opposite.

Our job is to counsel patients on the risks of their life choices. We do not deny care to those who live their lives in ways differently than we do even if we find certain choices morally offensive. 

Patient care is about the patient. Not the provider.

Multiple medical organizations are speaking out. So far, the Arkansas law is opposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, and the American College of Emergency Physicians. Other organizations are likely to oppose the law as well. 

This statement by the Arkansas Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers summarizes the general consensus saying, “no patient should ever be obstructed from receiving legal healthcare based solely on a provider’s personal values.”

Arkansas legislators and Governor Hutchinson must know this law will be challenged in court. Let’s hope the court remembers when it comes to patient care, the patient always comes first. 

The post The Anti-LGBTQ Arkansas Health Law is Dangerous for All of Us appeared first on Medika Life.

Just imagine if we could cure everything. We could all pack our bags and go home.

You assume you have a right to be healthy, or at the very least, expect health as a prerequisite for a good life. We are all born with this assumption programmed into us and if you don’t believe me, ask yourself this question. When you are sick or unhealthy, what tends to be the first thought that crosses your mind? Why me? It is as though the gods of ill intent have personally singled you out for a dose of pain and misery.

We use the term ‘health’ freely to describe, well, pretty much anything related to our ‘health’, but what do we actually understand of the word, in terms of definition. What does your ‘right to health’ actually entitle you to? Does it relate just to your physical state and being free of disease or does it encompass more? Should you be considering your social and economic conditions when you pose the “why me’ question and are they a part of your ‘health’?

How does the ‘healthcare’ industry interpret this term? It’s an important question as this directly impacts the treatments and outcomes you can expect from your health providers. Are doctors, for instance, tasked simply with your physical wellbeing (illness and disease), or do their duties extend beyond that. 

Let’s turn to the organization that is arguably seen as our global gatekeeper for health, the World Health Organization (WHO) to explore the answer. How do they define their very reason for existence? How do they define ‘health’? 

“Health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” 

World Health Organization

That’s a pretty tall order and a seriously extensive scope of responsibility for one single term and to bring home the further complexities of modern healthcare, this diagram from America’s Health Rankings (AHR)shows the overlaps of various disciplines considered in the field of health when they compile their data

What’s important about the little diagram above is the center, entitled health outcomes. It’s become a watchword for American healthcare. Successful outcomes are how we now gauge healthcare in America. The factors listed in the diagram, Behaviours, Physical Environment and Social Factors shouldn’t be confused with your understanding of health or the WHO definition. These environmental, social, and geographic factors are however crucial in developing healthcare’s responses and planning with regards to the care they provide you. So indirectly, they do affect your ‘health’.

Let’s explain this through the use of an example. America, in global terms, ranks terribly for infant mortality at birth. In fact, out of the 36 OECD countries measured, America comes third from last. Let’s use the 2020 data provided by AHR to support this statement. 

As an aside, if you’re wondering which state is best for pregnancy care, Vermont scores the highest, and statistically, your birth is safest in Massachusetts (3.8 deaths per 1000) and most at risk in Mississippi (8.7 deaths per 1000). According to the AHR 2020 report;

In 2018, over 21,000 infants died in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the leading causes were birth defects, low birthweight and preterm birth, maternal pregnancy complications, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and unintentional injuries.

The U.S. infant mortality rate has been consistently higher than other developed countries, and 1.5 times higher than the average (3.8 deaths per 1,000 live births) among Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Research indicates socioeconomic inequality in the United States is likely a primary contributor to its higher infant mortality rate.

According to the CDC report referenced above, race affects these figures in the following way. Sections in bold added by way of explanation.

Black women had the highest mortality rate (10.75), followed by infants of non-Hispanic NHOPI (Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: 9.39), non-Hispanic AIAN (American Indian or Alaska Native: 8.15), Hispanic (4.86), non-Hispanic white (4.63), and non-Hispanic Asian (3.63) women.

So that part of our diagram above, entitled Social and Economic, is actually the driving factor that increases the risk of your baby dying at birth. Does this have anything to do with your health and your child’s health, other than implying you move to Vermont for your pregnancy and deliver the baby in Massachusets? What if you’re black? Will moving help or is your race a fixed determinant in your child’s chances at birth? 

This where it gets complicated and where healthcare treads on quicksand. Your race, from a genetic point of view, does not affect your risk of infant death at birth and that is what makes the figures above so damning. These figures have nothing to with genetics or you but are rather an indictment of how the color of your skin, your sex, and your economic and social situation determine your access to healthcare and a healthy lifestyle. In effect, your right to ‘health’.

Racism, it turns out, kills babies, not race. Being socially disadvantaged kills babies. Being financially impoverished kills babies. 

In terms of health, the above are all classic WHO indicators of physically healthy people living in an unhealthy society. If we are to judge by the WHO definition, then American healthcare, in its current state, fails to live up to the lofty goals set, and it isn’t just in the field of infant mortality that it falls short. 

The question is, can we blame the American healthcare system for social and racial disparities? How can you hold doctors responsible for generations of institutionalized racism, sexism, and social inequality? No fair.

There is a quandy at the heart of modern healthcare. Is your provider merely required to treat your symptoms or do they have a moral and ethical responsibility to look beyond the diseases, to identify the causes and address these, to seek cures, rather than treatments? Where does their remit begin and where does it end?

The dangers of mixing the fields of medicine and health with finance, economics, societal politics, and race are that the lines begin to blur. Boundaries are necessary for the effective functioning of any system. Act beyond the scope of your boundaries (profession) and you dilute both your efficacy and your impact.

While we cannot hold Healthcare accountable for societal racism, sexism, and general inequality, we most certainly can expect the industry not to engage in any of these practices. That is sadly not always the case, but the industry is beginning to assess itself more introspectively with a view to rooting out these practices. Empowering and recognizing the voices of women within Healthcare is a massive step in the right direction.

Patients can also, and rightly so, expect health care providers to address the imbalances in their communities that lead to the racial disparities so clearly underlined by infant mortality in America. 

Let’s clarify that statement as it’s a weighty one. This expectation does not involve doctors and nurses dropping their stethoscopes and picking up banners for the next BLM protest. It refers to them addressing these imbalances from within the scope of their professional abilities. A clear set of “non-medical symptoms” or parameters exist to identify the at-risk and healthcare needs to respond accordingly by pre-empting the 8.7 dead babies for every 1000 born in Mississippi.

The healthcare profession is about exactly that, health. It isn’t about creating a revolving door of repeat business, but rather seeking out the lofty aspirations of the WHO. To treat a ‘sick’ society as their primary patient, particularly if that patient lies at the heart of burgeoning illness and disease. 

Providers need to encourage free weekly clinics in marginalized communities, governors need to increase budget allocations for communities that are in dire need of healthcare, free medication needs to be made available for those unable to provide for themselves., courtesy of a cash-rich Pharmaceutical industry. All of these things and more need to be put into action. Not to act is to be aware of the growing tumor and refusing to treat it. 

It leaves the industry with blood on their hands.

By now, I hope you understand that your ‘health’ means far more than simply waking up in the morning with all your fingers and toes accounted for. To be truly healthy, you need to strive for a stable social and economic environment, for you and your family. Achieving this is within everyone’s reach and when we encounter obstacles intentionally placed in the way of people achieving their true health, it falls on everyone’s shoulder to speak out and speak up.

Not just healthcare.

The post Racism, It Turns Out, Kills Babies, Not Race appeared first on Medika Life.