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?

"It is not just the pharmaceutical industry, at least there is evidence that their products do what they are supposed to. The alternative medicine industry also targets women to make profit, it is the way of capitalism."

I don't think they target just women, they target people

"My point was, why isn't there an awareness campaign about HPV as there is for Chlamydia? If I'd seen information telling me that this innocuous infection was widespread and could lead to cancer, I would have been a lot more careful."

I knew about this. I have read articles in magazines, seen programmes on TV, read posts on the internet. Where were you when these articles were issued/broadcasted?

Can someone explain the issues about mammograms? I wasn't aware there were any.

Incidentally when I first went on the pill in 1978 internal examinations were compulsory (this was in the UK).

That link has made me feel sick. Breast exams too?!
A smear for someone who is sexually active is one thing but all that 'fingers in your genitals stuff' -omg how unnecessary and frankly dangerous. (risk of infection/trauma)

Abortion is illegal where I live too Stewie but there is no exams for the pill or visits to discuss birth control. It just seems so unnecessary for young girls to have to have these. In the US is it normal to see a specialist? If I wanted the pill I just go to a my GP or clinic nurse

www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol27/dixon.php

It is a completely different system Stewie and I don't understand it enough. Are Christian pharmacies in Christian areas allowed to withold contraceptives for sale? (How very un-Christian)
Can I also ask how much (on average) a months supply of the Pill is, (its ?3-7 where I live)
I still don't understand the need for invasive exams for young girls and how its justified, is it the large pharamceuticals? To me it just seems like a way to show girls from a young age their body is 'medical' property (I hope I'm not coming across as too thick)

Are there any vocal campaigns against this practice and are there any campaigns against witholding contraception based on religious beliefs? Surely someones ability to access health supersedes someones right to access their version of god. What human right is therefore more important? Right to religion or right to health/bodily integrity. Sorry Stewie all the questions....sheesh!

Thanks Stewie I think I'll have to read up more on US politics to understand it more. I think the Republicans are just anti-life, anti-joy from what I can see. I don't think the alternative is too much better either, its a shame there are no other viable options in the US.

I don't think it's at all fair to berate the OP for not having seen/read media reports about HPV, Bunbaker. Have you really read/seen nothing about the divisions within the medical profession re the advisability of mammograms?

Ok, I'll drop the HPV thing now as 1 person has agreed with me and everyone else seems to think I'm a thicko. Thanks LRD. Btw, a friend of mine has an 'abnormal' result on every single smear that she has done. Thats just her being contrary. There's nothing wrong with her.

Mostly, it's an error in the way the test has been done, rather than an 'abnormal you' iykwim. Not enough cells collected or it's contaminated. Just follow it up and I'm sure you'll be fine.

That link is shocking. I'm old enough to have had my first smear at 18. I can't imagine sending a non sexually active 14-16 yr old for a vaginal/rectal exam. That's unnecessary. Sounds like you get your money's worth though.

I'm of the opinion that 18 is about right, its ridiculous and dangerous to wait until 25 for your first smear. Although, it's the budget that decides.

I was agreeing with you, too, VirgoGrr...albeit in a roundabout and rambly way...

And I found it a thought-provoking thread...and I'd still like to know about Germaine Greer's line on mammograms.

Just going back to the 'pushing' of Cerazette, when my GP recommended it to me, I said I wasn't particularly happy with the likely outcome that my periods would cease. He scoffed at me and said that he didn't know why British women were so hung up on the idea that a monthly bleed was healthy and that it was seen as a positive benefit by women in the US/Australia. I have never felt quite so patronised. Oh, since the last time I had to talk to this medical non-entity. I find it hard to imagine that he came up with that all on his own. It felt like something that came on a handout from the manufacturer on how to handle objections.

Reader, I'm afraid he talked me into it. One of the worst decisions I ever made. Cerazette should be withdrawn from the market, it's dangerous. That's a wild claim, but it's just my opinion. And the opinion of quite a few others.

Sorry Civilon, you did, didn't you.
Yes, I'd like to know too. I'm just going to go and google.

Being patronised by docs should be warning enough for women really. I don't know why we sit there and take it. Not getting at you, OP - god knows I've sat there and taken it most of my life.

Um...I'm not sure where this idea of going off to have a vaginal exam at 14 comes from.

The thinking here (in America) was to start going for yearly checks (as in cervical cancer) at 18-20 or when you started having sex, whichever came first. Now it's every few years if you're under a certain age and had a clear screen the last time.

Also I have never known anyone who had a problem getting birth control pills or had to pay for them. I was on them briefly (I reacted badly and didn't take them anymore) and never paid. 4Now is a program run through Planned Parenthood which takes care of birth control costs for almost everyone, and gives out condoms for free as well. I've always had all my gyno appointments through Planned Parenthood and haven't paid for them as I haven't been able to.

And I have a really hard time with gyno exams (due to sexual trauma in my teens) and the Planned Parenthood people are so much more lovely and kind than the one "normal" doctor I saw.

SGM that is awful.

IME, an awful lot of the time if you do go to the GP, you're told 'it's a side-effect but we can try a different pill'. SIL (German) was really, really shocked last Christmas when we were all having a rather frank and tipsy chat and my other SIL admitted when she first went on the pill she bled clots for about two weeks out of the month, and got told to 'take another six months on it to see if it calms down'.

I think part of the problem is that compared to some medical conditions, these side-effects seem to strike medics as very minor, but they are not minor at all IMO. So I think GPs could make it easier to discuss side effects. I've never heard of them being helpful (I am sure there are lovely and wonderful GPs out there, I'm afraid I've just heard of so many who aren't interested in this aspect).

virgo - thanks for mentioning your friend, that is comforting.

Btw CY - it was me who mentioned 16-18, purely as that's what my mate said to me, but she was only describing the experience of friends and not generalizing I think.