Of course "mistreatment" is not the same as "don't get the support they want". And if it were the case that the majority of Canadian mothers are mistreated at birth, don't you think that even without an actual scientific study we would have some kind of pop culture ambient feeling about it? Like articles, anecdotal stories, tiktoks etc? But we don't have such ambient cultural references because there is no baseline of a majority of Canadian mothers being mistreated at childbirth. Stats would indeed be great but don't use their absence to trivialize the systemic racism indigenous people face in our country.

[–] DerisionConsulting@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

"don't get the support they want" can be a what counts as mistreatment in this study. You only needed to tick one of the boxes, and one of them was "My health care provider(s) withheld treatment". What each person defines "withheld treatment" as can vary. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/global-womens-health/articles/10.3389/fgwh.2026.1780855/full#T1

Either way, all of the women were given the same list, and the indigenous women showed more negative results.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

"My health care provider(s) withheld treatment or forced me to accept treatment that I did not want."

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Keyword is 'or'. If care provider failed to give a requested back rub at some point, this could be checked off and associated with mistreatment. Obviously that's a stupid example, but it shows why this study was a bit crappy. I'm sure there's is mistreatment due to racism, but this study isn't so good at showing it.

[–] TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes, if you're the kind of person who is looking for ways to discredit victims and deny the existence of social problems, then any amount of ambiguity is easily manipulated.

Scientists should always define experimental protocols explicitly with ignorant apologists in mind...

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes, scientists should define their experimental protocols explicitly. That's kinda a cornerstone of science. Based on the article (which could be poor and maybe the actually published paper is better), they did show the questions, and it looks explicitly like if a patient checked off 'did not receive requested treatment' (or something like that), then they would be characterized as mistreated. And that raises red flags. If they had a good control group, and if the scoring was more nuanced than implied, then it could be ok. But it doesn't read that way, and that can damage a cause that is important and needs addressing (ie racism in the medical system affecting care especially regarding native women and maternity care). Science should always be questioned if only to make it stronger as it survives questioning. If we let it slide because of political correctness or not wanting to hurt feelings, then it's no better than religion.

[–] TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

... And you value truth and accuracy so much that you are making assumptions rather than seeking out the actual study...

You already know what you want to believe, so you're framing your interpretation to fit your presupposition.

Kick rocks, racist; no one here wants to talk to you, or hear what you have to say.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm responding to the article and what was reported there. It seems to be you that wants to find a racist to satisfy your moral outrage and make yourself feel better in some twisted way. Nothing I've said is saying racism in the system isn't there - in fact I've specifically and directly said that it is. I'm criticizing the science of this particular study. If you can't distinguish the two because you are blinded by ignorant self righteousness, that's on you.

[–] TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes... And your alleged intentions have clearly been well understood by everyone here...

Get over yourself; from your vocabulary it's clear you're not employed in a STEM field. You're just some armchair pundit who wants to manufacture doubt by suggesting ideological bias has been introduced in someone else's work because you don't like the results of their study.

Don't expect any further replies from me; it's clear exactly what you are, and you're not worth engaging with.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Haha. I was doing stem type work before it was called that! Not that I've done any real science for decades, but I certainly know the process. Ask yourself why you are so worried about covering for the bad science of this article that you'd take to insults instead of facing the clear facts? And no, I don't 'like' the results - I wish we didn't have racism in the system, but that's got nothing to do with it. As I've said multiple times and you seem incapable of absorbing, I'm not arguing against the paper because I don't think there's racism in the system, in fact I've said explicitly that I think there is. It's the bad science that actually hurts the effort to fix these things. So why are you arguing against me here? Do you think this paper was good science? Do you think we should ignore bad scientific method if it shows results we want to see? Or if it shows results we are pretty sure are right but it's methods are flawed? See - that's bad science, which any stem educated person would know.

[–] TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You've already admitted you haven't read the paper... Only an article covering it... Take your bullshit and indignation somewhere else.

We're done here.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 0 points 19 hours ago

Honestly I was hoping someone with access to the paper might have explained the data gathering and it would turn out that that the research had actually done a much better job than what the article made it look like. Maybe that was lazy of me, my bad. But it seemed to instead trigger a bunch of people.