Media Post 2: Health Disparities/Scientific Racism
In a post-Dobbs v. Jackson America, women’s healthcare has undergone an unprecedented decline. The consequences of this decision have extended beyond the tangible. In tandem with diminished access to care, the misogynistic rhetoric undermining women's autonomy has been revitalized into a force capable of robbing women of their agency–even in death. In the article “A pregnant brain-dead woman in Georgia was kept on life support. Experts say it raises ethical, legal questions” by Mary Kekatos, the results of such discriminatory healthcare practices are exposed. Through interrogating the case of Adriana Smith, this article examines the reality that modern regulations on abortion have led to the dehumanization of pregnant individuals, which is exacerbated by a longstanding history of racism undercutting the quality of maternal healthcare. The devastating reduction of Smith’s corpse into a vessel of reproduction illuminates how conservative legislation objectifies women–particularly women of color– to bolster systemic racial and gender hierarchies.
The laws and clinical practices that prevented Smith from having dignity in death are tethered to the notion that a woman's autonomy is inferior to legislative forces and the powers that shape them. The objectification of Smith is not an isolated event, but rather a part of a broader pattern in which women are perceived as little more than the hosts of their organs, in which the personhood of their fetuses (present or future) takes priority. In contrast to being forced to maintain a pregnancy, others are restricted from becoming pregnant as a result of the same underlying belief that women are most valued as potential child rearers. Notably, “at least 148 pregnant women received tubal ligations shortly after giving birth while incarcerated at two California prisons [with sparse documentation of consent]. The majority of the women were Black and Latina” (Jindia, 2020), demonstrating that decisions regarding women’s reproduction are often removed from women themselves and justified by the broader implication that incarcerated people would be undesirable/incapable mothers. The supposed fate of a fetus is used as justification to objectify women and perform invasive procedures (in Smith’s case, forcing the corpse to be an incubator on life support) with dubious consent. This is especially concerning when noting that the eugenic undertones of equating incarceration with immorality/reason to not reproduce. This approach implies that criminality is genetic rather than predominantly a product of environment, and ignores that the policing and justice systems are riddled with racial bias.
The clinical occupation of Smith’s corpse was not the only ethical transgression documented in her story. Smith’s death itself was preceded by dismissal on behalf of medical professionals. Notably, the article states that Smith “went to Northside Hospital…after developing severe headaches…was given medication and sent home. She was not given a CT scan and not kept overnight for observation.” (Kekatos, 2025), and ultimately her headaches were tied to severe blood clots in her brain, which caused her death. It is not uncommon for marginalized patients to not be taken seriously when describing their lived experiences. Those who are listening to their testimony (medical staff) may “use social stereotype as heuristics in their spontaneous assessments of their interlocutor’s credibility. This use of stereotypes may be…misleading” (Fricker, 2007). These assessments may be unintentional, but the effects of such credibility judgements remain real and harmful–as in Smith’s situation. Smith was likely ascribed a credibility deficit, and the risks associated with her symptoms were not fairly considered, as her pain wasn’t treated as legitimate. Given that “relative to white patients, black patients are less likely to be given pain medications and, if given…they receive lower quantities” (Hoffman et al., 2016) and some medical students and physicians hold onto false beliefs about black people, for instance that they have “thicker skin than…white people” (Hoffman et al., 2016), it is feasible that disparities in treatment are linked to how the care team responds to the patients race. These concerns are especially complex when noting that obstetric patients are often treated as aliens within the medical system, in which many physicians view their pregnant patients as fragile and complicated. Consequently, the concerns of pregnant people are typically deferred to an OBGYN or minimized and given a general solution, which may not be tailored to the patient's needs. Whether physicians are truly unfamiliar with the complications that can arise from pregnancy, as they lack the hermeneutical resources (perhaps medical education excludes how treatment should adapt in pregnancy), or are disregarding patients based on bias (or both!), neither is an excuse for negligence and malpractice.
Comments
Post a Comment