Women half as likely to be given drug for fatal bleeds (Times report 19/05/22)

[BettyFilous]

Depressing read. Shocking, but not surprising.

Women are half as likely to receive a drug that stops them bleeding to death after accidents as men are due to NHS “sex discrimination”, a study indicated.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/40789da4-d6cc-11ec-8585-951ab3afb4d2?shareToken=5743b6e44091870815b07a44d3997f52

(MNHQ - do not move to Feminism Chat. The article refers frequently to sex differences in treatment.)

Not if there are risks as well, and I imagine there are with a drug like that.

There are risks with all drugs, to a greater or lesser extent.

According to wiki 'Haemophilia A affects about 1 in 5,000–10,000, while haemophilia B affects about 1 in 40,000, males at birth.' ...so probably statistically insignificant.

I have read the paper, I participated in the CRASH2 trial and I prescribe and administer TXA. The paper specifically addresses this, and TXA is not administered on the basis of mechanism.

I find it very frustrating when it’s assumed other women haven’t taken the time to read a paper.

I don't actually think that's a useful distinction here. But even if I did, they don't know that. They are stating a cause while also saying the cause is unknown. If there is a known cause, it's important to state it accuratly. If there is no cause, then that needs to be accurate too.

They are identifying a concerning trend. Clearly it needs to be investigated.

For sure. But there are drugs where the risks are low enough to be used just in case, and there are drugs where they are significant enough that it's a bad idea.

Yes. I haven't disputed that. It's concerning and also the possibility that investigating could lead to new medical insights is interesting.

But calling it sex discrimination with only the information that there is a disparity isn't neutral, and it isn't coming out of nowhere either. It's a tendency that comes from an attitude to analysis that is anti-scientific, although often it's invoked as much because it gets headlines, or funding, rather than because of true belief in the paradigm. Neither of those is really a good driver for science either though.

that's shocking

But this is a drug that is given to women for their periods. So if the risks are, for example, higher for women than men, which is why men get given it more ofter then im not sure I fillow the logic of 'its risky to women so we wont give it when it might save their life but we will when they have periods'

So if the risks are, for example, higher for women than men, which is why men get given it more ofter then im not sure I fillow the logic of 'its risky to women so we wont give it when it might save their life but we will when they have periods'

Me neither. Is it a different dosage?