Response to “Ethics and Linguistics of ‘omestic Global Health’ Experience”

Abstract

and Esmeralda Rosales raise concerns about the colonial and paternalistic roots of "medical mission" work (within the United States or internationally) and the use of the term domestic global health. In "How Should Academic Medical Centers Administer Students' 'Domestic Global Health' Experiences," I review parallels between community health experiences internationally and experiences serving the underserved within the United States, often with migrant populations or in student-run clinics. I use the term domestic global health to highlight these parallels, as has been done in the literature elsewhere. 1,2,3 As a primary care physician within a large urban safety-net system with a focus on immigrant children and families, I agree with the authors of this response that engagement with local underserved areas within the United States is respectable and valuable without need for reference to service elsewhere. I also agree that we, as faculty at academic medical centers (AMCs), have an obligation to understand the roots of and our role in these issues, as discussed in the paper. Ultimately, we have an obligation to critically assess how our communities can be supported by AMCs, in partnership with the communities themselves.