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

[R0wantrees]

Just listening & heard that as part of Viagra trials for blood pressure as well as the realisation it might help men's erectile disfunction, in women it stopped period pain. This was deemed not important to pursue.

oh wow. I wish I was surprised. I have been learning a little about the differences in women's and mens health care over the last few years, diff in medical research and testing etc and it is just incredible yet again how women get less than men. Thanks for alerting us to this little known fact

It was a good discussion.
Worth listening to on catch up.

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

www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/92/8/13-132795/en/

'In most parts of the world, health outcomes among boys and men continue to be substantially worse than among girls and women...'

'That men tend to be in worse health than women has now been made clear by robust evidence from various sources. The Global Burden of Disease study led by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in 2010 (GBD 2010 study) showed that throughout the period from 1970 to 2010, women had a longer life expectancy than men. Over that 40-year period, female life expectancy at birth increased from 61.2 to 73.3 years, whereas male life expectancy rose from 56.4 to 67.5 years. These figures indicate that the gap in life expectancy at birth widened between the sexes to men’s disadvantage over those 40 years.'

But men blah blah blah...

No comment on the fact that studies showed viagra to have multiple possible benefits and the erection thing was pursued while period pain thing was dropped?

MeAgainAgain - I have no idea why that was the case. Nor do want to make uninformed comments about why it might be the case. But the OP and others seem to be 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. The WHO study seems to contradict that with studies from multiple bodies around the world. I'd like to know what your opinion is on that.

JurgenKloppsCat Not really, I had quick posted last night and wanted to recommend the program.
Ive never listened to Late Night WH before.
It was a good discussion... I just highlighted one aspect which I had not heard of before.
Do listen, there was lots of evidenced based discussion.

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”.3

These are all serious issues that need sustained focus and work (suggestion: men could take the lead on this, much as women have done a huge amount of the advocacy and campaigning work around many social issues for women?) but none of them are to do with research or health spending. That men have shorter life expectancies is a known fact, but it's also a known fact that women's bodies and health remain incredibly unresearched compared to men. Those facts don't cancel each other out: they both need work. This thread is about the latter.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Interesting article on the diff in mortality

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

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????

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?

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

Rowantrees did listen to it.

Rowantrees did listen to it.

She did but was busy at the time. Its worth listening to when it becomes avaiable on catch up.
I just had a look and it seems not yet

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?

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.

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.

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.