Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dogecoin_pleasures t1_ix5w2ve wrote

Reply to comment by rampas_inhumanas in Indigenous people are less likely to survive the year after an ICU admission. 12 months after being admitted to intensive care, an Indigenous person is more likely to have died than a non-Indigenous person, according to Australian research. by MistWeaver80

A key factor in this (that might be a difference between Australian and Canadian indigenous) is that it goes against Aboriginal culture to leave one's own land and go into the land of a different first nation. This makes flying to an ICU located in a different city culturally traumatic.

30

hidden-shadow t1_ix73imb wrote

Around 80% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders live in urban areas (i.e. connected to local medical services). Not all aboriginal cultures (or people) share this belief, nor do a significant number of aboriginals have the actual knowledge of their culture as a ramification of the Stolen Generations.

11

dogecoin_pleasures t1_ix75wr9 wrote

For urban indigenous populations, distrust of authorities and therefore unwillingness for follow up care is probably a bigger factor, as well as healthcare bureaucracy being harder to navigate for those who aren't a part of the dominant culture (white, middle class).

5

hidden-shadow t1_ix76d7l wrote

My point being, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest the issue of crossing borders is a key factor whatsoever. I suggest that the distrust surrounding government associated programs is far more relevant.

4

dogecoin_pleasures t1_ix771hs wrote

I did a bit of work in the area of aboriginal healthcare and border crossings between nations did come up as an issue as a way in which western healthcare was insensitive to indigenous needs. It probably doesn't affect the most assimilated but might screw regional mortality rates

4

hidden-shadow t1_ix78bgf wrote

Perhaps, but to call it a key factor in a trend discussing Aboriginal peoples across the country is hard to justify.

4

Wigglepus t1_ix9s80c wrote

Is there research that shows markedly different health outcomes for Aboriginal people living in urban areas vs those living in rural areas? Are these trends markedly different for Aboriginal people than for the general population?

I don't know anything about Australian health care but in most places rural people tend to have worse health outcomes due to limited access to care. So we should expect to see worse outcomes for rural Aboriginal population as well. However, if boarder crossing is a significant issue health outcomes should be disproportionately worse for rural Aboriginal people vs urban Aboriginal people when compared to the overall urban/rural populations. I.e. difference in outcomes for urban Aboriginal Australian and rural Aboriginal Australian is greater than difference in outcomes for urban non-Aboriginal Australian and rural non-Aboriginal Australian.

1

hidden-shadow t1_ixlcnij wrote

Yes, though the remoteness itself is only one factor in the gap. And it is drastically different to the non-Indigenous population. Difference in life expectancy between the two groups is ~8 years but widens in remote to very remote regions to ~14 years. Almost no decrease in non-Indigenous life expectancy across various levels of remoteness.

The 'very remote' indigenous populations tend to 'live on land', in isolated communities separate from the general population. So unlike in urban and regional areas, where facilities are readily available, it often requires even further travel to return to urban hubs for treatment.

So the difference is not a positive indication that crossing cultural borders is a key factor. Whereas historic distrust of government services is well documented.

1

theweightoflostlove t1_ix5ys9k wrote

I agree with you, but if you’re requiring ICU care at the risk of imminent death you’re probably going to make an exception or likely tubed and sedated.

Healthcare facilities, especially in large capital cities feel sterile (pardon the pun) have little indigenous art or design in recognition of indigenous culture to provide First Nations people a little comfort.

Then there’s the challenge of access to pharmacy, follow up appointments, cost and relatively poor health literacy.

9

vicious_snek t1_ix7cpuj wrote

And when they do have art, its the fake* new dot stuff, not the true stuff. Not that they could have a lot of the true stuff, because its secret. Hence the dots, what happened was the western desert nation (IIRC) was doing art with an anthropologist or sociologist in the 70s, and invented the dots to hide the actual painting from him and white viewers. It's not ancient, and it's not the history for any of the other nations

You'll find some aboriginal folks with some very strong anti dot art opinions, and it wouldn't provide them with all that much comfort.

1

ScrunchieEnthusiast t1_ix679jm wrote

I’m not indigenous, but this is not the case in Canada. Moving from place to place is par for the course in my province.

4

BetterLivingThru t1_ix6a151 wrote

I'm a Canadian who is familiar with many of our first nations and has read much professional anthropological literature about Australian Aboriginal people, so I feel I can comment on this. While both types of groups are connected to their land, Australian Aboriginal mythological relation to the land is way more intense. I imagine separation is way more traumatic, whereas for Canadian First Nations, it's more about separation from the community itself, then specifically about the land, and personal connection to the stories about the land, which are often "owned" by specific individuals in Australia and closely kept.

17

crazyjkass t1_ix6vgxg wrote

Indigenous peoples of North America moved around a lot and were really economically, technologically, and socially sophisticated. Pretty much every tribal nation is less than 300 years old and is descended from people from a totally different region. But the aboriginal Australians believe their ancestors lived on the exact same piece of land continuously for 40,000 years with no change in lifestyle or culture. It was punishable by death (spearing) to trespass on another tribes land unless you can prove you're not a trespasser by singing the songline that tells the story of your ancestor totem passing through the country in the dreamtime. They're fundamentally opposed to humans taking advantage of natural resources and building things because people grow out of the land like plants. People migrating is like uprooting a tree.

From the perspective of an American/Canadian, the things aboriginal Australians say about their own culture sounds like the racist myths told in North America about the natives. They also have the one drop rule in Australia, but they get mad if you call it that.

4

CinnamonBlue t1_ix7noyv wrote

It sounds cruel to inflict Western Medicine on these people. They have their own medicine that has served them for thousands of years. Wouldn’t it be kinder to help them revive/use that instead?

1

dogecoin_pleasures t1_ix7peoo wrote

The valorisation of traditional medicine has positive cultural benefits but, unfortunately, had some unintended effects of vaccine hesitation. So I think the challenge is combining the two in a way that bests serves peoples needs

1