Added: Latricia Daughtery - Date: 01.04.2022 22:42 - Views: 14591 - Clicks: 4283
F rom the earliest days of medicine, women have been considered inferior versions of men. In On the Generation of Animals, the Greek philosopher Aristotle characterised a female as a mutilated male, and this belief has persisted in western medical culture. This is particularly prevalent when women keep returning to the doctor, stubbornly refusing to be saved.
Moralising discourses surround those who rebel; they are represented as irrational and irresponsible, the safety net for medicine when it cannot fulfil its claim to control the body. And it is not just endometriosis patients treated this way. Not only have doctors, scientists and researchers mostly been men, but most of the cells, animals and humans studied in medical science have also been male: most of the advances we have seen in medicine have come from the study of male biology.
Medicine has always seen women first and foremost as reproductive bodies. Our reproductive organs were the greatest source of difference to men — and because they were different, they were mysterious and suspicious. But the fallout of this difference is that for a long time medicine assumed it was the only difference. Because women had reproductive organs, they should reproduce, and all else about them was deemed uninteresting.
In the early 20th century, the endocrine system, which produces hormones, was discovered. Still, medicine persisted with the belief that all other organs and functions would operate the same in men and women, so there was no need to study women. Conversely, researchers said that the menstrual cycle, and varied release of hormones throughout the cycle in rodents, introduced too many variables into a study, therefore females could not be studied.
Diseases presenting differently in women are often missed or misdiagnosed, and those affecting mainly women remain largely a mystery: understudied, undertreated and frequently misdiagnosed or undiagnosed. This has major knock-on effects for both medical practice and the health of women.
We see this in many predominantly female conditions: women with endometriosis are told that delayed childbearing causes the illness, or that pregnancy will cure it; women with breast cancer were once fed this line until advances in research which only occurred because women campaigned for better knowledge and treatments proved otherwise.
The study enrolled 8, men and no women Conducted in 22, men and zero women. The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial — known, aptly enough, as MRFIT — which looked at whether dietary change and exercise could help prevent heart disease: just 13, men. The result of this male bias in research extends beyond clinical practice. Of the 10 prescription drugs taken off the market by the US Food and Drug Administration between and due to severe adverse effects, eight caused greater health risks in women.
Between the 70s and 90s, these organisations and many other national and international regulators had a policy that ruled out women of so-called childbearing potential from early-stage drug trials.
The reasoning went like this: since women are born with all the eggs they will ever produce, they should be excluded from drug trials in case the drug proves toxic and impedes their ability to reproduce in the future. The result was that all women were excluded from trials, regardless of their age, gender status, sexual orientation or wish or ability to bear children.
Men, on the other hand, constantly reproduce their sperm, meaning they represent a reduced risk. It sounds like a sensible policy, except it treats all women like walking wombs and has introduced a huge bias into the health of the human race. And though clinical studies have changed substantially, preclinical studies remained focused on male cell lines and male animals.Biggus Dickus - Monthy Python, Life of Brian Best Scenes
A study by Annaliese Beery and Irving Zucker reviewed sex bias in research on mammals in 10 biological fields during and their historical precedents. In the past half-century, male bias in non-human studies has increased while declining in human studies.
Studies of both sexes frequently fail to analyse by sex. Under-representation of females in animal models of disease is also commonplace, and our understanding of female biology is compromised by these deficiencies. It took until for the NIH to begin to acknowledge the problem of male bias in preclinical trials, and until for it to mandate that any research money it granted must include female animals. These policies and practices have often been framed as paternalistic, deed to protect women against the harmful effects of medical research.
But history belies this notion. Rather, we are left with the impression that women are not interesting enough for scientific endeavour but good enough for practice. The female problem: how male bias in medical trials ruined women's health.
Composite: Getty. Gabrielle Jackson. Wed 13 Nov . I have a disease. All these things that are wrong with me are real, they are endometriosis'. Reuse this content.Is there any females here
email: [email protected] - phone:(984) 464-8189 x 7803
What Makes An Athlete Female? Here’s How The Olympics Decide