Smear tests to subordinate women

Annie I'll have a look later, have to prepare lunch now (am Polish btw)

AFAIK, all employees have to submit to a medical test once every 2 years (I imagine that's standard, here in France it's the same, I think). Not aware of any other compulsory tests.

Sakura, there is an interesting discussion to be had about the medical approach to "women's issues" and the attitudes to women that are institutionalised within the medical profession.

There is an interesting discussion to be had about how cancer screening programmmes could be improved (the cervical screening programme is a long way from perfect).

There is probably virtual unanimity on MN that smear tests should never be compulsory; less unanimity, probably, about whether Poland's new policy is related to an inherent misogyny or is just an expansion of the existing governmental mindset under which all sorts of medical tests and procedures are already compulsory, but there is an interesting discussion to be had there as well.

But one thing that is pretty much guaranteed to NOT lead to any kind of interesting discussion is your conjuring up an image of men in smoky rooms saying "You know, Carruthers, what I REALLY want to do is to get women to comply, to STFU and to be penetrated by gynaecological instruments" "Well, Frobisher, have you considered instituting a national programme of cervical screening costing millions of pounds every year? It might save quite a lot of lives, but that's OK so long as it's not the main point?". Or when you overlook that testicles are on the outside and handled by their owners on a daily basis, while cervixes aren't. When you start off a thread that way you sound as though you are in orbit somewhere around Planet Hatstand. And if Germaine Greer says the same thing then she sounds as though she's in orbit around Planet Hatstand too. In fact this thread has made me significantly less likely to buy her book, which I otherwise might well have done if I happened upon it -- I've met and liked Greer and (as I said in my first few paragraphs) there's a whole range of interesting stuff to discuss in this area. But now I'm likely to think "Ah, that's the book that hasn't noticed that testicles are the dangly bits on the outside".

exactly, Himalaya

Does anyone have any knowledge about other medical screening tests that are compulsory in Poland? Ones just for men, or for both genders? Just to clear up whether this is a common trend for Polish medicine or whether it's just women being 'targeted'.

Sakura -

I think this is really irresponsible:

"did you think smear tests were about saving women's lives?"

"Honestly, I can't be arsed hunting it down, but obviously Greer has referenced all the studies in book."

It doesn't matter that you are not 'in power' you are speaking to a bunch of women who will all many times in their life have to decide whether to go for a smear test or not. And you are scaremongering.

It makes me suspect that you don't really want to know whether smear tests are effective in saving lives or not if you can't be bothered to look at the data, and just want (us) to take (your account of..) Germaine Greer's word for it.

You can't be expecting everyone on this thread to buy this book, fgs.

My point was, sakura, that if you're ignorant about the subject (as you clearly are) than perhaps it would be a good idea to do some research before posting such a load of bullshit.

Fair enough about being appalled about the compulsory screenings.

But to state that smear tests are useless, because Germaine Greer says so? Not very bright and potentially dangerous if you manage to convince someone reading your posts of it.

There is a discussion to be had about how much the state has a right to force people to undergo medical procedures against their wishes. But this sort of deranged ranting is not helpful. I think your tinfoil hat needs adjusting again, Sakura.

That is an argument not for a level playing field but for a playing field in which men must always wait for women to go first.

It sounds a little as if you are diverting into things you can argue (women usd to not be allowed to be doctors!) because you have no good reason to not want men to be gynaecologists other than that you don't like men.

I understand that men might want to go into the profession because of XYZ, but those are the very same reasons that women would want to go into it. They're taking the place of a woman.

That applies to every job ever. If a man is a bus driver he may be taking the place of a woman who wants to be a bus driver. Are you arguing that men should't be allowed to be bus drivers unless there are no female applicants?

I didn't say anything about the history of gynaecology.

All I was thinking was that Poland may be more inclined to authoritarian solutions in general than other EU countries because of where its come from politically.

This thread has baffled me!

I had a horrible internal done recently (by a woman) who left my genitals in a bit of a swollen cut up mess, I would have been much happier if an experienced man had done it than this particular woman who was obviously shit at it.

This is a dangerous thread, if this were to influence 1 woman to not go for a smear when it turned out she would in fact be one of those who needed it, you do realise you would be mostly responsible if she didn't get treatment in time?

Whoa.

"I still don't understand WTF men are doing in gynecology."

OK. I consider myself to be a feminist - I've lurked around this board for quite a while now, and it really has opened up my eyes to lots and lots of things and it really has changed me. Honestly though? This kind of thing is just...massively off putting for me.

I thought feminism is about fighting to level the playing ground - equality?

And I cannot understand why men shouldn't be in gynaecology. I don't have dodgy lungs yet I work in respiratory medicine - should I not?

I agree with Forkful that it is shocking that "that it took so long for women to be allowed to practice medicine and that opportunities for career breaks and part time working at senior levels are difficult to manage in a medical career." But this is not specific to gynaecology, but true for all specialities.

I don't think a post on Mumsnet ahs ever made me quite so angry before!! What a load of rubbish, cervical and breastancer screening have saved so many women's lives, I just do not understand how anyone could think they are a bad things. I only have to look at my on MIL, who had early breast cancer diagnosed from a mamogram 10 years ago and is still with us and clear of cancer to know that. Survival rates from breast cancer now stand at over 50% and that has a lot to do with earlier detection.

As others have said there is not equivalent screening for testicular cancer as the area is easier to self test!

However in the next 2 years there will be a screening programme introduced for bowel cancer, which will be offered to both sexes and is thought to be one of the biggest breakthroughs in Cancer Research is recent years.

Have I overslept...is it April the 1st

This would suggest that screening was a success. Quote -

"without screening there might have been 800 more deaths from cervical cancer in women under 55 in 1997."

And the trends over time graph here quite clearly shows a steady state incidence rate until 1990, (national screening programme came in in 1988) and significantly reduced since then. There are differences between age groups and interestingly, the incidence rate for the under 25s (most of whom won't have had a smear test yet as it's not routinely offered until 25) has remained pretty stable since 1990.

Now, I know we can't assume casuality. BUT I think the stats are pretty clear.

Please take your uninformed and quite frankly embarassing ranting somewhere else.

'As I said, the point is not to actually save women's lives, but to get women to comply, to STFU and to be penetrated by gynelogical instruments'

Hmm that's probably a little bit radical for me. But personally I love to hear different points of view that challenge me.

I can see that Sakura's argument (taken without context is ) but I know there's an awful lot of "complying" wrt to women in medicine. (eg One Born Every Minute UK showed a lot of medicalised births but try lookin at the USA version which is on at the moment... Straight into hospital, on your back, on a drip to induce you, epidural - if they say you need a C-section and you refuse they can get a judge involved....)

There is an awful lot of medicine/medical procedures which in reality are all about making ££££ for men drug companies - but these treatments masquerade as "saving lives".

I suggest you go back and re-read Greer's Female Eunuch, in which she talks about women 'regularly dying from diseases in organs they didn't even know they had'.

Smear tests are nobody's idea of fun. They are often badly carried out. The results are good, but not 100 per cent. They are, however, the best gauge we have at the moment of knowing whether or not we have cervical cancer and I for one would rather know that than remain ignorant and die for lack of treatment.

Women have campaigned for access to healthcare. For rights over our bodies which include the right to the tests and the screening that can safeguard our bodies. Forty years ago, women were just getting to know what cervixes were, and getting out the speculum and having a good look. (I regret not keeping the copy of Spare Rib, complete with black and white photos, that I bought some time around 1978 which showed you in great detail how to do self-exam.)

You can regard your cervix as a tucked-away secret that doesn't need inspection. Me, I'll do the temporarily humiliating splayed-knees act down at the local surgery every couple of years.