Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

HRT being denied to women over 60. What do you think?

95 replies

meyesmyeyes · 11/06/2015 15:09

I wondered what people make of the fact that a woman who is benefiting greatly from HRT, ie:

Protection from heart disease
Better distribution of healthy fats
Stronger bones
Increased libido
Better mental health
Better sleep patterns
Improved memory
.....to name a few of the many benefits,

has to give up HRT once she reaches the age of 60. She gets to have the 'talk' from her GP, apparently and they do their best to frighten you off taking them.

But a man of the same age, who is transgendering, is not only offered female hormones, but is apparently, allowed to stay on them indefinitely.

Is this fair to Women?

This is not another transgender 'bashing' thread.
I am genuinely interested, from a fairness (and equality) point of view really.

Surely if a woman is not allowed this treatment after a certain age, and has to accept that she will lose a lot of her womanly ways (lack of oestrogen causes a woman's body to start acting more like a man's especially when it comes to where fat is distributed),
then surely it's only fair that a man who is transgendering and is aged over 60' should also have to put up with less female hormones..

(I know about the slight increase of breast cancer, which by the way could do with updating - and is often quoted, which causes unnecessary scaremongering)

Are women getting a raw deal from the medical profession?

OP posts:
DragonWithAGirlTattoo · 12/06/2015 17:39

"how everything given to trans people is something that has been taken from women"

Sorry, I don't understand this comment from higher up on the thread

HelenaDove · 12/06/2015 17:29

Brilliant posts on this thread about Viagra and HRT.

myeyes youve made some excellent points. Surely Viagra is a lifestyle drug too.

Im 42 on Monday so may have to find out about HRT in the next few years.

Ive never wanted children and was refused sterilisation in my late 20s. "I didnt know my own mind"

In the past ive been on Combined Pill Norplant (early implant which was discontinued) Depo Provera contraceptive injection and the Mini Pill.

Ive also lost a lot of weight (i used to be obese) While on the mini pill i gained a couple of pounds despite sticking to the slimming world plan. Came off it and dropped half a stone.

The Mini Pill made me so bloated it was awful.

OwenMeanysArmadillo · 12/06/2015 17:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
meyesmyeyes · 12/06/2015 17:17

Aren't you also worried that the next man you prescribed Viagra to will drop dead of a heart attack?
Aren't you worried his family might sue you?
(sorry for the constant Viagra references, but it's for comparison)

The point I'm trying to make is - why does it have to be a woman's medication that is targeted and put in jeopardy.

Out of the thousands of drugs out there - that ALL carry risks, why does the negative spotlight have to be on HRT in particular? - one of the few drugs around specifically designed to help women -and is being withheld because of this attitude*

OP posts:
BabyGanoush · 12/06/2015 17:17

meyesmyyes, good point about the viagra.

Original poster
meyesmyeyes · 12/06/2015 17:04

Yops, what's the answer then?

OP posts:
Original poster
meyesmyeyes · 12/06/2015 17:03

OwenMeany, lots of repeat prescriptions carry 'risks' of things going wrong and contra-indications.

LOTS of medication can cause kidney damage and liver damage when taken for too long.
Lots of people take repeat prescriptions for 'life' eg for blood pressure, thyroid meds, statins etc, for the rest of their lives.

Aren't Doctors worried that they could get sued if something goes wrong which is caused by those medications?

I wonder if it's because HRT is mistakenly seen as a 'lifestyle' choice as opposed to necessary?
Thinking aloud here Hmm

OP posts:
Yops · 12/06/2015 17:00

Meyes - let's say you signed such a form, and then died from a side-effect. You aren't really in much of a position to prevent your family from pursuing a legal claim, are you? You're dead! And do you think they wouldn't be able to find a lawyer who fancied making a few quid suing the NHS? All they have to establish is that you were not in possession of all the facts at the time of signing, or that you weren't in a fit mental state to make a rational decision. You were upset/depressed/in pain/clouded judgement. People in here have already admitted to these symptoms.

Original poster
meyesmyeyes · 12/06/2015 16:53

GPs not GPS Smile

OP posts:
Original poster
meyesmyeyes · 12/06/2015 16:52

I can understand why many GPs will not prescribe it for older women. They are protecting themselves from potentially career damaging and hugely stressful litigation.

So the few women that are quick to sue the GPS are spoiling it for the many women that would benefit from HRT from age 60 and beyond!
That's a terrible state of affairs (for Doctor and Patient) when you stop to think about it. Sad

Thank you for answering honestly as to why GPs are reluctant to prescribe it.
I suspected that all this 'risk' business had something fishy about it.

OP posts:
Original poster
meyesmyeyes · 12/06/2015 16:47

Someone up thread booed that GPs were reading. I'm a GP (female) and reading. There are risks and benefits as we all know. Personally I am happy for a woman to take an informed decision to continue past the age recommended in the guidelines. However in the last 10 or so years the tolerance of the regulatory authorities for doctors who act out with the guidelines has diminished so much that it is almost impossible to defend in court should something go wrong, whether the patient made an informed choice or not.

I and a lot of other women I'm sure, would be more than happy to sign a consent form, absolving the GP of any blame should something go wrong. Hmm

OP posts:
LurcioAgain · 12/06/2015 16:26

Owen and Night - that's very interesting about the issue of litigation (a relative of mine, in a different professional field, but also one where a cock-up can lead to deaths, was recently on the receiving end of what I guess you'd call "vexatious litigation" and I know how stressful it was for him defending the action, so I don't blame doctors for being wary).

Owen out of interest you say you'd rather take ADs than a hormonal preparation long term - would this be ADs to treat menopausal symptoms? If so, why would ADs be suitable? (I know there are other drugs which can be used - is it vasosuppressors that can be used to treat flushes?) I just feel like I'd be uncomfortable with ADs with the side effects I've heard friends mention (weight gain, feeling kind of fuzzily cut off from your emotions) when I don't have depression, my hormones are just knackered due to age.

Yops without wanting to get diverted into a discussion of men's health (though it would make for an interesting thread), broadly I think I agree with you. Someone up thread brought up age discrimination, and I think it's a bit too quick an answer to say "GPs would hand out viagra without question." The one I always think of which doesn't get talked about is prostate trouble - not actual cancer, but the enlargement of the prostate which goes with age. I'm hoping things have moved on in the 15 or so years since one relative of mine was treated, but he had an enlarged prostate. Not life threatening, rather a quality of life issue (as with my menopausal symptoms): needing to pee in the night was disrupting his sleep, needing to pee in the day was limiting what he could do because he couldn't be too far from a public toilet. The operation commonly used to treat this causes impotence in 1 out of 3 cases. It did in his case. Now he doesn't think he made the wrong choice, but he and his wife were very sad to be pitched into involuntary celibacy for the last 10 years of their marriage till his wife died. And I get the impression that this is an issue that just isn't talked about. So yes, men's health and sex lives as they get older are minimised, but I'd say 10 to 15 years later than women's health and sex lives start to get minimised.

OwenMeanysArmadillo · 12/06/2015 15:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Yops · 12/06/2015 15:49

NightFalls, can you comment on the assertion made earlier that men don't have such problems with obtaining drugs in similar circumstances, i.e. not life-threatening but quality-of-life enhancing? Viagra was mentioned. Is it a fair comparison, or a fair point?

NightFallsFast · 12/06/2015 14:12

Someone up thread booed that GPs were reading. I'm a GP (female) and reading. There are risks and benefits as we all know. Personally I am happy for a woman to take an informed decision to continue past the age recommended in the guidelines. However in the last 10 or so years the tolerance of the regulatory authorities for doctors who act out with the guidelines has diminished so much that it is almost impossible to defend in court should something go wrong, whether the patient made an informed choice or not.

I can understand why many GPs will not prescribe it for older women. They are protecting themselves from potentially career damaging and hugely stressful litigation.

Original poster
meyesmyeyes · 12/06/2015 14:09

Some younger doctors have never prescribed HRT because they wrongly believe the risks of the treatment outweigh the benefits, it is claimed.

This part shocks me.

OP posts:
Original poster
meyesmyeyes · 12/06/2015 14:07

A major reassessment of the research into hormone replacement therapy has concluded that menopausal women were the victims of ‘mass fear’ generated by findings from ten years ago.

Many of the conclusions reached by the 2002 study, including the raised risk of breast cancer, have now been overturned.

British doctors are calling for the rules on prescribing HRT to be rewritten, allowing a new generation to benefit from bone protection and improved quality of life.

At present, women in their 50s are told to use hormone replacement therapy drugs for the shortest period of time that is possible and not for longer than five years.

Some younger doctors have never prescribed HRT because they wrongly believe the risks of the treatment outweigh the benefits, it is claimed.

The new analysis of the evidence by leading experts – including clinicians from the US National Institutes of Health who worked on the original

* A lot don't realise that this is the current (updated) thinking about HRT

OP posts:
expatinscotland · 12/06/2015 14:07

'Over 50% of GPs in England are female. Do you feel female GP's do not trust other women to weigh up the pros and cons and come to a decision for themselves? Do you think sexism is endemic in female GPs?'

I think it's more a matter of assuming all patients are stupider than they, and liars. That's been my experience, mostly, with a few exceptions. There's a lot of patronising and simpering and the feeling they aren't listening.

Original poster
meyesmyeyes · 12/06/2015 14:03

I was informed I couldn't have a diaphragm as they don't do them anymore and the pressure to have a coil fitted was immense

My surgery went through a phase that no matter what you went to them for, they would ask ''do you want a coil fitted''.
They even started phoning me at home about it. Talk about pressure.

OP posts:
Original poster
meyesmyeyes · 12/06/2015 14:01

I know this is the dailyfail, but it's quite a good article and sums up the hysteria that has surrounded HRT in recent years.

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2147835/A-wasted-decade-How-HRT-scare-caused-thousands-women-10-years-needless-suffering.html

OP posts:
SaulGood · 12/06/2015 13:54

My Mum has just turned 60. She had a hysterectomy 15 years ago and has used HRT until very recently. They lowered and lowered her dose over time, warning her that she'd have to stop soon as she'd exceeded the time she was supposed to be on it. Now she's on anti-depressants instead and they don't seem to do anything to control the insomnia and hot flushes. She really wasn't given any option to stay on it any longer. She's in rude health otherwise and absolutely would have opted to stay on HRT.

I've also had problems with contraception. I was informed I couldn't have a diaphragm as they don't do them anymore and the pressure to have a coil fitted was immense, from every corner. They were very reluctant to give me a copper one when I finally gave in and even before fitting it were pushing the Mirena. DH had a vasectomy in the end!

Original poster
meyesmyeyes · 12/06/2015 13:52

The increased risk of cancer is statistically very small. The much wider & more immediate health benefits, particularly for bone density and fat composition, far outweigh the risk. Anyone whose GP hasn't updated their knowledge in ten years can easily find a trustworthy article to print out

Exactly.

OP posts:
Original poster
meyesmyeyes · 12/06/2015 13:47

yes, I understand that this doubles or triples my risk of dying from certain cancers or a stroke in the next five years.

Lurcio, those statistics are out of date. The current thinking is that HRT only carries a 'slight' increase in risk and not a high risk as previously thought.

Unfortunately, about 10 years ago when it was discovered that there was a slight rise in breast cancer in women who took HRT, the Press, as per usual, took the word 'risk' and exaggerated into massive scare mongering stories - as they do
They scare mongered HRT to hell and gone.

In fact, they exaggerated it to such an extent that a whole generation of women were put off using HRT and Doctors were reluctant to prescribe it.

A result of this was that a whole generation of women were failed proper care and were basically advised to put up and shut up.

Luckily, more 'non-hysterical' studies have since been done and the current consensus is that the benefits (in certain cases) outweigh the 'slight' risks involved in taking HRT.

Unfortunately, not all health authorities have updated their knowledge.
So it will take a while to filter through to the patients. If at all.

OP posts:
Original poster
meyesmyeyes · 12/06/2015 13:44

"yes, I understand that this doubles or triples my risk of dying from certain cancers or a stroke in the next five years..

Lurcio, those statistics are out of date. The current thinking is that it only carries a 'slight' increase in risk.

Unfortunately, about 10 years ago when it was discovered that there was a slight rise in breast cancer in women who took HRT, the press, as per usual, took the word 'risk' and exaggerated it as they do
They scare mongered HRT to hell and gone.

In fact, they exaggerated it to such an extent that a whole generation of women were put off using HRT and Doctors were reluctant to prescribe it.
A whole generation of women were failed proper care.

Luckily, more non-hysterical studies have been done and the concensus is that the benefits (in certain cases) outweigh the 'slight' risks.

Unfortunately, not all health authorities have updated their knowledge.
So it will take a while to filter through to the patients. If at all.

OP posts:
Gilrack · 12/06/2015 13:42

As a 60-year-old female woman on HRT - hopefully for life - I'm just plopping my experience in here. Feminism tends to have strong feelings about HRT, which aren't always that well informed.

As I have PCOS, I've been on some form of hormonal medication for approx half my adult life. While un-medicated, my atypical hormones brought several advantages but also some absolutely massive disadvantages. 25% of women have it. PCOS is a metabolic disorder, it doesn't go away with menopause or removal of the ovaries.

I tell my GP every year that I want to stay on HRT. My prescription continues. GPs are supposed to review ongoing medication; this isn't confined to HRT or women's meds in general. The increased risk of cancer is statistically very small, even though I'm a smoker. The much wider & more immediate health benefits, particularly for bone density and fat composition, far outweigh the risk. Anyone whose GP hasn't updated their knowledge in ten years can easily find a trustworthy article to print out.

The HRT supplied to menopausal women on the NHS provides a much smaller dose of hormones than the Pill (about 10% iirc.) It doesn't make your skin younger or your hair thicker (sadly!) It bears very little relation to the hormonal meds used in gender transition - those are massive doses with very real risks to patients' overall health. A lot of MtF transitioners use even higher oestrogen doses than needed, for the 'beauty' effects. This puts a big strain on many organs, particularly the liver, and brings other dangers.

I get a bit cross about (invariably younger) women saying MtFs are like menopausal FtFs! The issues are not the same in any shape or form. No, we don't have loads in common. No, we do not share the same concerns.

HRT for women is safe, and available for as long as we feel a benefit :)