LAUSR

T he word “slave” is a double entendre; it can be a noun (ie, a person who is legal property of another), and a verb (ie, to work excessively hard).1 The term used as a noun is a reminder, consciously and unconsciously, of the history of American slavery where African Americans were owned by White American slave owners. Neither the term “slave” nor the phrase “master-slave” has a rightful place in medical literature or in the practice of medicine, yet the terms are frequently used to name medical devices in prominent medical journals, especially in robotic surgery literature. The term slave is often used as a name to identify smaller or supportive parts of medical devices that support a larger component or major operation of the whole device. The use of the term “slave” as a name for supportive components of devices originated in US engineering literature in the 1960s.2 Reflecting on and critiquing language that physicians accept and use in the workplace and in educational realms are critical steps to identifying and correcting racism pervasive in the medical field. In this research letter, we analyze the use of the word “slave” as it is commonly used in US medical publications, primarily surgical literature, over the past decade. We propose alternative terminology because “slave” terminology reinforces and upholds racist ideologies which negatively impact medical practice and treatment of communities of color who shoulder a disproportionate burden of medical disease.3 These terms reinforce implicit bias in certain physicians and undermine confidence in others; in turn, the terms fracture trust in communities of color for patients receiving care from physicians who do not look like them.4