The Pharmaceutical/Health Industry and Women

[VirgoGrr]

I'm just exploring a few thoughts about how medical/health issues that affect women are making money for the pharmaceutical industry.

I've just commented on another thread about my experiences with treatment for abnormal cervical cells. At the time and afterwards, I obviously read up on HPV and what may have led to my problem and I was horrified to learn that by taking the pill, as I'd been recommended, and by choosing a new partner who had had a recent std test, I thought I was practicing safe sex. Obviously not, it's likely that I was exposed to HPV after a serious illness and this led to severely abnormal, precancerous cells. If someone had told me that I was putting my health at risk at that time, there's no way I would have been taking the pill, I would have been insisting on condoms. I had not even heard of HPV before I had an abnormal smear. This is a number of years ago, btw.

Would it be too cynical to suggest that it's beneficial for the industry to not make this simple knowledge more widely available to women because they sell contraceptive pills, the equipment for smear tests, the equipment for treatment and the HPV vaccine?

I'm sure there are lots of examples. What do you think?

I think there is an astonishing gullibility and lack of cynicism among the general public.

And a staunch refusal to believe that companies are driven by profit.

At least the question of body dysmorphia being "solved" by doctors recommending that they have breast "enhancing" implants is currently under the spotlight. What kind of madness is that, to mutilate women who feel anxious because they don't meet the industry standard?

Until I tried to get pregnant, I never had sex without a condom. Even though I had never had sex without a condom, I still had STI tests at 19, although I probably wouldn't have done if my friend hadn't needed somebody to go with her. I suppose the reason I always used condoms was because of having grown up during the AIDS campaigns.

I was always surprised by how many of my friends were on the pill, but I believe that many health staff were recommending it to young women, and presumably still are. I had a friend who went to get the morning after pill after a condom split, and she was lectured on not using a more reliable method of contraception like the pill.

I certainly think money plays a part. I read the chapter in Germaine Greer's book on the problems with both smear tests and mammograms, and so was unsurprised at the recent news that mammograms don't reduce cancer rates. Sorry if that has already been covered on your other thread.

Mammograms are a whole other minefield.

It's the recommendation of products that may not be right for you by someone that you trust implicitly ie your doctor is very questionable, IMO.

When I go to my GP, I'm usually really quite ill and I often cry, either with stress or with pain. They are very quick to offer anti-ds, I find.

"Trust implicitly" is the problem there, OP.

What does GG say about smears and mammograms?

I agree, that should be "someone that you should be able to trust implicitly"

No, but my point is you shouldn't automatically trust people who work in the health industry - you should find out for yourself, and make decisions which are best for you.

The disempowering of women by the health industry is truly scary.

The pharmaceutical industry is extremely powerful and will stop at nothing to make more money. The government is powerless to stop them as they don't have the money to fund group damages cases against them. If a whole load of people in a similar situation to yourself could sue the pharmas for not disclosing information that could have prevented disease, you ought to win. But the sad fact is you can't afford to pay for the legal costs so they will win. Pharmas know this (within the UK legal system anyway) and can therefore get away with murder.

I was involved in a group action against a pharma. The drug I was prescribed damaged my baby and has now been shown to have very high statistics for birth defects, ten times higher than quoted when I was pregnant, yet the drug was 25 years old. They had been trying to find a genetic link between the defects and the mothers. And in the UK we have the lovely NHS who pick up the pieces - the diseased and the damaged.

I've only just realised that you are raising a very good point: medicine being used against women was a mega issue for feminism in the Seventies - as you say, often wrt psychiatry. That seems to have been buried for a long time now. I'd say cosmetic surgery is bigger than psychiatry now in the oppression of women.

I don't think the govt is powerless; we know from recent announcements that the pharmaceutical industry is tremendously important to the British economy, so the govt are hardly likely to stand in the way of the industry's interests. On the contrary.

That's so awful horsetowater.

The business aspect of pharmaceuticals is damaging in so many ways. I think there must be a lot of working hours devoted to analysing how to offset compensation and bad PR against the profits.

My DM was offered thalidomide when carrying my sister. Thank god she declined. She's not keen on taking a paracetamol if she doesn't think she needs it. I'm much the same.

I'm very much against the promotion of cosmetic surgery as a lifestyle choice or a quick fix for your insecurities. Those makeover programmes that make it look like going for a facial are appalling.

virgo i am sorry if i come across as daft, but did you not realize that your partner can still carry sti even after a recent test? i always used condoms (not as contraception but as sti prevention) AND was on the pill. after aids era people got really careful (they are really slacking now)

Yes I think it would be too cynical

incidentally, just googled remembered that hpv cannot be prevented by condom alone as it can be present on skin around the genitals. that is why limiting the number of sexual partners and choosing the one with low number of previous partners is the best way to ensure that one is not infected with that one. morals aside (i do not care for morals here) the best way to reduce the risk is have the relationship with someone with no previous sexual partners (however unrealistic in this day and age).

In the UK, there is limited opportunity for additional profit for companies to lie to patients - doctors do not earn more based on prescribing certain drugs and NHS rules limited some of what can be prescribed.
The HPV link to cervical cancer is relatively recent - the NHS has started vaccinating all girls at 12-13 link, although you could argue this is more money for drug companies.
As for contraception, the pill is much more effective than condoms at preventing pregnancy, but not STDs - depends on your priority, behaviour etc.
Yes all companies aim to make a profit but does not make them evil.
We all work to make a 'profit' for ourselves from our labour - does that mean we are all evil and desperately try to rip off our employers at all times?

I think it's a shame when a realistic grasp of politics and economics is dismissed as cynical.

I've wondered why the pill is free whereas you have to pay for condoms, shouldn't it be the other way round?

Civilion our views of "realistic grasps of politics " differ. No one is dismissing anything.

I used phrase "too cynical " in direct response to OPs question " would it be too cynical to suggest..." In her opening post.

Victorialucas, condoms are free at family planning clinics.

What's your view of mammograms, Jasper?

Actually, the Pill vs condoms debate is interesting. Surely all teens/twentysomethings are meant to be using condoms, to protect themselves from HIV and other STIs. So if a girl/woman is on the Pill, do they use a condom as well? I think that's a bit counter-intuitive, isn't it?

"I think that's a bit counter-intuitive, isn't it?"
nope

All the safe sex advice I've read says use condoms even if on the pill, this includes the stuff given to kids at school. I'm surprised an adult woman was unaware of this and don't believe it's part of a pharmaceutical conspiracy. There are plenty of non-pharmaceutical organisations out there giving advice on safe sex and on contraception.

That the pharmaceutical industry seeks to maximise its profits is, however, obvious. That's not a feminist issue but a capitalist one. They don't care if you're male or female so long as you think there is something wrong with you that can be helped by a branded product.