Risk Population Stigma

Health professionals have clearly shown the advancement in the medical sciences by listing down numerous risk and predisposing factors for almost every disease and illness. With these laid down, we see the demarcation of the “susceptible ” from the “least likely” to be inflicted with specific conditions. Because of this, an equal amount of attention had already been given in manipulating these risk factors to reduce the occurrence of diseases.

But how can we describe the risk population if the risk factors which are listed are vague and unspecific?

I’m talking about the risk factors mentioned that are quite misleading. A concrete example  of such would be the HIV infection where several sources have clearly stated that being a “homosexual/bisexual” predisposes you to acquiring the infection. I think the labeling of sexual preference has a shaky foundation. For one, being a homosexual does not give you genetic predisposition to acquiring the disease as both men and women, heterosexual or homosexual, have the equal risk of acquiring the infection when exposed to it. Second, the use of this factor is also quite discriminating since it assumes being a homosexual is synonymous to being a person who practice risky sexual behavior. It fails to recognize the presence of those who practice protected sex and those who completely abstain from it. Probably, a better statement of the risk factor for acquiring the HIV infection would be “People who practice risky sexual behavior”

Another discriminating risk factor that I commonly read about is in Obstetrics where they label “Women from the lower socioeconomic level” as a risk factor of having poor nutrition. This factor assumes that these women do not have money to procure foods that will sustain the nutritional needs of their bodies and of their growing baby. But how about those informed women who, despite of having less money allocated for food, maintain optimal nutrition by buy cheaper substitutes? Can we still say that being from the lower socioeconomic level hinders them from being nutritionally adequate? Last time I’ve read, being poor doesn’t affect your intestine’s ability to absorb nutrients.

In a nutshell, I believe several risk factors are obviously generalizations which less accurately describes the people who are susceptible to the disease. To a point, they may also be considered as discriminatory  and insensitive to other sectors. Therefore, a systematic review of the risk factors is needed to make the risk factors more specific to the “risk population.” It may just be a problem concerning semantics but of course, this may mean a lot to those people who are unjustifiably labeled as “at risk.”