The topic of health equity is particularly apt to the concept of “alchemy,” as described by the billionaire philanthropist and economist George Soros. Alchemy is, according to Soros, rooted in his concept of “reflexivity,” through which social realities are made, approximately through a process like propaganda that makes them hegemonic. In short, a public movement that agitates for a new social consciousness emerges through “alchemy” and makes a new social reality out of the narrative at its heart. Alchemy takes place when something is true enough to gain significant traction but not completely true. This is the “fertile fallacy,” according to Soros, that makes reflexivity, thus alchemy, work.
Health equity is an extremely good example of a concept fitting the alchemical bill. This is because there’s something valid about health equity, especially around financial and economic concerns relevant to having fair access to healthcare. Health equity doesn’t stop there, however. Being a form of social equity theory applied to the concept of health, it judges success only by achieving equitable health outcomes across identity groups.
Thus, in practice, health equity uses health, genuine disparities in health outcomes, and legitimate questions about failures in accessibility to healthcare as a lever to apply radical identity politics. These equitable health outcomes must be achieved by intentionally changing the relevant systems—social, cultural, epistemological, institutional, and economic—unequally. This bias against equality and in favor of equity is because equality cannot achieve equity.
Understanding the complexities, nuances, and dangers around the idea of health equity is therefore of paramount importance as we come through the COVID-19 era and into what follows. Join Lindsay and O’Fallon as they sit down to try to shed light on the ins and outs of this issue so that you can be as informed as possible as the public conversation on the issue develops.
2 comments
Right now your association with Michael O’Fallon has been used to discredit you in liberal circles, and though I like to point out that I do not see racist, or illiberal ideas on your blog, O’Fallon keeps coming up to bite me in the arse for defending you.
So, what is up with your association with him?
From personal experience I can verify that nursing theory is (not surprisingly) is bankrupt and in places, aligns explicitly with social justice. Look up the ANA nursing code of ethics, free to view online – 9.3 “Integrating social justice…9.4 Social justice in nursing and health policy.” Over history nursing as a field has had to carved out its role as independent of “medicine” d/t turf wars. This carving out process has largely relied on the quantitative, then translated this into a “fight for equity.” Funny that the ANA fights the AMA for a piece of the same pie, which is the reduction of care for all by righting a moral-historical wrong. It’s purely cowardice and self-preservation on one side of the scale versus retribution on the other; unfortunately after a hundred years of “education” in the university system, the leaders writing these documents are from the top, and ironically, massive upheaval is the only fix.