"One of the issues that disturbs me often is the term 'skin of color'.How long are we going to use/tolerate this horribly meaningless and unscientific term?
I would say it is a politically motivated/orchestrated confusion.
Do you know any individual on this planet without any color in her/his basal layer?
If 'skin of color' refers to Fitz IV, V, and VI skin types then how to describe Type I, II and III? 'Skin of no-color'???
Why not use better, crisper, easier and scientifically correct terms like darker skin and lighter skin, instead?
I detest the term ‘skin of color' not exactly as a racist phrase but as an miserably inadequate, unscientific and imprudent term.
All human beings have some color in their basal layer. Type I, II, III skin also has some active melanocyte and some epidermal melanin units in their skin. That means 'color'.
So, why categorize Type IV, V, VI in a segregated manner as 'skin of color'?
In many meetings (recent AAD included) there are sessions on dermatoses in skin of color. Why not 'dermatoses in darker skin' replacing 'dermatosis inskin of color’?"
Monday, August 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There may be disagreement on the phrase 'skin of colour', but the issue remains relevant. Type IV, V & VI skin needs attention that escaped it for long. Recently, I had a presentation in Cuticon- Orissa- 2009, where I dealt on the subject under the title 'The Brown Patient' accounting and recounting the issues faced in dealing with patients with a darker skin. Dr. C R Srinivas& Dr. R N Dutta were present among others. I wish you were there too...
ReplyDeleteDear friend, I have diagreed with the issue you have raised. My opposition to the use of an incorrect phrase. Why not use a simpler term 'Darker skin'?
ReplyDelete