NZ Politics

562 readers

1 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other kiwi communities here

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Dave

RaoulDuke

Congrats to the new CEO of NZ. What benefits will National bring to NZ over the next 3 years? (self.politics)

submitted 1 year ago by luthis to c/politics

65 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Let's look on the bright side. The people voted this way (quite significantly) so they must be seeing something positive there. I already know all the downsides so let's discuss the upsides.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Rangelus 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Racial background been a factor in health decisions for ages in certain situations. Just like age, weight, sex and smoking are. To be clear we are talking about situations where all else is equal between patients, then racial background based risk factors are included to decide who gets surgery first.

I absolute believe clinically significant factors should be a part of health decisions, regardless of what they are.

[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ethnicity has only ever been used as a data point for the best health outcomes. Some diseases progress differently in different ethnicities. It has never been used to prioritise healthcare in NZ. The former is fine. The latter is an actual war crime.

Either way, an argument of "it's not new" isn't a defence of systemic racial discrimination for healthcare.

[–] Rangelus 3 points 1 year ago

The RNZ article outlines really well why that Herald article you posted was, at most, very misleading. However, to summarize:

The Equality Adjuster Score is used to increase equality of outcomes in patients, and includes many factors including severity of disease, time on waiting list, geographical location, age, sex, weight and other risk factors including racial background, additional health complications, deprivation, and much more. Note that these factors are not all weighted equally. Racial background “might only get one or two extra points out of 100 on that score because of their ethnicity”.
Clinical need is by far the most important factor, but as you have already acknowledged, there are clinical reasons for including racial background into consideration.
Maori and Pacific peoples are worse outcomes compared to Pakiha in all aspects of health, and the decision to include racial background as a small part of the EAS is an attempt to address this.
The alarm bell was rung by some surgeons in Auckland – but there's strong clinical support for the new equity adjuster. Surgeons had a big part in its development. It's been expressly supported by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. The adjuster is not managerially or ideologically driven. Further, the starting point for the adjuster is clinical priority, based on medical diagnosis. That trumps everything else. . Critically, the EAS was developed under guidance from actual medical professionals.

Either way, an argument of “it’s not new” isn’t a defence of systemic racial discrimination for healthcare.

The fact that it isn't new should tell you that this isn't something that has suddenly sprung up under Labour. It is a known fact that racial background affects health outcomes. There absolutely is systemic racial discrimination in healthcare. It's just not in the direction you think it is.

The latter is an actual war crime.

Lol