R4 Late Night Woman's Hour discussing the significant differences/failures between men & women's health care

Can't read the comments, seems you need a subscription to.

Yep, guilty as charged. Apologies. I could have been less confrontational. But this leaping to the same conclusion in every case without the full facts (apparently the OP didn't listen to the whole programme) doesn't make for a balanced discussion.

There is an interesting article here, written by a biophysicist, about gender inequality in medical research;

www.ft.com/content/7864ae80-9597-11e8-95f8-8640db9060a7

And just as interesting is the discussion/comments section below, including input from professionals in the clinical trials industry. It appears that there may be more to it than just misogyny and the patriarchy at work.

I’ll ignore you the goady shite

Hmmm may I remind you of your first comment, on a post about women’s period pain in the feminist boards:

But men blah blah blah...

From what I can tell, there were two trials of viagra on women, which showed that it gave total pain relief to those women. So I don't think that women not being involved in trials was the problem in this case. Although I agree it is generally an issue. I think medical trials these days do try to recruit women, as far as I know which might not be very much at all.

So on the wider issue of medical research being less important for women than men - again, why

Gee... I wonder why in a patriarchal society women are considered less important than men when it comes to healthcare... gosh it’s just so hard to understand isn’t it....

Re Wisdom's point, which may have been missed at the bottom of the previous page;

With regards to drug trials, part of the problem is that at the very early stages of drug development, most drugs are trialled on healthy young men as women can be excluded due to the risk of pregnancy. No drug company wants another thalidomide scandal on its hands. Skews results though.

So, how should this be addressed? I'll ignore the goady shite.

But what is the point of your links Jessica?

To reinforce and provide context for my initial comment. This isn’t a stand alone example re women and healthcare generally. It’s yet another example. One of many.

I think Jessica posted those links to reinforce the OPs point/ contradict Jurgen's assertion that this is just "a single drug" being used "as evidence that there is a more sinister/widespread objective". Those links are pointing out other examples of women being ignored in healthcare research, i.e. this is not just an isolated example but part of a pattern. That's how I read it anyway.

But exciting to see one of the "rules of misogyny" in the wild from Jurgen - number 12: whatever women suffer from, men suffer from more.

Women are dismissed by women gps and it’s generally due to lack of knowledge. Not all women gps have had personal experience of every female health complaint! Endometriosis is a good example- very common health complaint that is frequently misdiagnosed or ignored. My guess would be due to lack of training.
With regards to drug trials, part of the problem is that at the very early stages of drug development, most drugs are trialled on healthy young men as women can be excluded due to the risk of pregnancy. No drug company wants another thalidomide scandal on its hands. Skews results though.

It wasn't Pfizer who decided not to pursue it, it was the regulatory authories who decided that alleviating menstrual cramps wasn't a very significant benefit and didn't authorise trials for that purpose.

I don't know why Jurgen is all over this thread making the point that men don't look after their own health- that's well known and it has sod all to do with how the medical establishment treats women.

So on the wider issue of medical research being less important for women than men - again, why? If a drug company can make money, why do they abandon research into women's issues? Is women's money less valued than men's?

And when it comes to first-line treatment, women generally are more likely to visit a GP, and there are more women GPs than men (at least in in the UK). So are women patients being misdiagnosed, or dismissed, by women GPs? Is this due to internalised misogyny even amongst women medical practitioners?

Rowantrees did listen to it.

I'm guessing it was discussed on the radio show? Maybe we should listen to it before discussing it.

Me Again - nobody has addressed the question yet of why '...in women it stopped period pain. This was deemed not important to pursue.' I'm interested to know - aren't you?

And it seems Pfizer actually did investigate the effects of Viagra in women - eight years of research, involving 3,000 women;

www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/business/pfizer-gives-up-testing-viagra-on-women.html

Now they seem to have come at it from the angle of increasing sexual arousal, but that is also what they did for men. But I'd suggest that drug companies are driven primarily by profit. So do you think they abandoned trials of the drug and it's efficacy in reducing menstrual cramps for financial, or misogynistic reasons?

But what is the point of your links Jessica?

Jurgen's link was posted to try and make us stop talking about the viagra / erections / period pain thing. Because. snoffair shuttup.

Yours seems to be suggesting there are issues? You realise this is the feminist board????

Interesting article on the diff in mortality

ourworldindata.org/why-do-women-live-longer-than-men

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/nov/20/healthcare-gender-bias-women-pain

www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/39364958/endometriosis-treatment-unacceptable-and-women-arent-diagnosed-quickly-enough

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1761670/

highlighting a case of a single drug as evidence that there is a more sinister/widespread objective of depriving women of fair and equitable access to healthcare.

not at all, this is just another instance of many I have seen, particularly in the area of drug trails. here is one article, there are many and it is a topic being widely discussed. Not sure why you are so combative on it:

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/30/fda-clinical-trials-gender-gap-epa-nih-institute-of-medicine-cardiovascular-disease

I keep meaning to listen to LNWH - is it good? I love the daytime one, particularly if Jane is on.

The subject matter is slightly different because of the timing. I did see some criticism on here when Juno Dawson was a guest but I thought she was a good guest and added to the discussion. Jane and Jenni don’t present it - it’s usually Lauren Laverne. It’s more discursive than the daytime programme and less ‘educational’ so I wouldn’t feel confident saying ‘You’re gonna lurve it, HollowTalk but it’s entertaining.

...in women it stopped period pain. This was deemed not important to pursue.

Did anyone say why? Did Pfizer decide based on misogynistic reasons?

From your link, @JurgenKloppsCat, the WHO report is nothing to do with the differences between men and women's health care. The difference in lifespan between men and women is explained:

"What explains this gender disparity? According to the WHO European Region’s review of the social determinants of health, chaired by Sir Michael Marmot, men’s poorer survival rates “reflect several factors – greater levels of occupational exposure to physical and chemical hazards, behaviours associated with male norms of risk-taking and adventure, health behaviour paradigms related to masculinity and the fact that men are less likely to visit a doctor when they are ill and, when they see a doctor, are less likely to report on the symptoms of disease or illness""

Maybe start a thread about this issue if it's of particular importance to you.