I'm glad to see that our scientists seem to be making inroads on the treatment of breast cancer. Our evening news was rife with stories about "Herceptin," a new drug that is touted as cutting in half the chance that breast cancer will return. The studies will have to continue, because they've only followed women with cancer for three years. Breast cancer can return in up to 20 years. Still, this is a positive bit of news.
So much of our health care has been based on studies that used men, but not women, for research. It's been within my lifetime that scientists have come to recognize that it's not safe to generalize that treatment that works for a male body, will necessarily work for a female body.
Have the drug companies focused their research on men because men have had more discretionary income than women? Probably.
Have drug companies generalized drug use from studies that were male only. Yes.
Will we begin to see any change in that pattern, as it has become obvious that it's not possible to generalize how a woman will respond to a drug that hasn't been tested on women? I hope so. I'd hate to think that women might be blindly participating in field research for drug companies.
It's possible that this is one area where insurance companies might actually be of help in managing women's health. If enough women have to file claims against a drug company for selling drugs that are inappropriate, through insufficient research, perhaps the insurance companies will actually do a service.
Now that women are a larger part of the work force, I think it's become profitable to see to their needs. After all, why would a smart business turn their back on a demographic that large?
I'm really glad to see that strides are being made in women's health care. I hope Herceptin is the wonder drug they think it might be.
Comments (3)
It is obvious that airplanes weren't pitched to women because men were the drivers and the buyers; but, I think that the reason drug companies have omitted women are (at least) three-fold: 1) Most of the decisions were made by men thus the "normal" human being was a male--women escaped noticed because they were not "normal", 2) The menstrual cycle in women may be difficult to cope with in determining effects of medication, and 3) The reproductive system in women is a thing of fear to most men (the decision makers). If they shut their eyes they wouldn't have to deal with issues of fertility or fetal deformities (think: thalydamide--sp?)
The nurse's health study is providing a wealth of information, as are some of the recent studies where drugs are actually being tested on women. Another thought: In the early days of drug testing, much of it was carried out on doctors--males, all. And it didn't occur to anyone, then, that women were a species apart.
P.S. Don't you think that women are closer to female chimps than they are to human males? I'd bet on it! It isn't just that men are more like chimps than like women--they are more like MALE chimps.
Posted by Cop Car | October 21, 2005 10:59 PM
Posted on October 21, 2005 22:59
Buffy,
There has been much publicity over here on the success of Herceptin in treating certain types of breast cancer in women and there is at least one Health authority which has decided to give the drug to all eligible breast cancer sufferers in the region, even though I believe that the drug isn't fullly registered for such use over here. I also agree with everything you and CopCar say on checking medicines on men, not realising that women's bodies could have a different effect.
In fact all sorts of things are designed for and by men without any thought of the needs of women - for example shelves in supermarkets and bookstores which I, a woman of average height, just cannot reach the items displayed thereon.
However, on the health front at least most women are open to the concept of testing their breasts for lumps and, if they find something then going off to the doctors to chech it out. I have read a lot in the papers trying to get men to understand that cancer doesn't just hit women. Breast cancer can affect men as well as women and then there is testicular cancer. Apparently men just will not check themselves for it and even if they find themselves do not do anything about it. There are often articles in the papers and on tv and radio on this urging men to take more care of themselves. So, my point is that at least women tend to be more informed about health risks and to be more willing to do something about it if something might be wrong.
Posted by Adele | October 23, 2005 11:30 AM
Posted on October 23, 2005 11:30
I agree with you totally, Adele. DH has been diagnosed with diabetes. His attitude about it is totally the opposite of mine. I'm reading all sorts of things, and trying to plan meals that will work within his diet. Meanwhile, he goes on as if there haven't been any changes in his life, other than having to test his blood each morning. I've always thought that men go through life thinking they are immortal. Now I'm sure of it.
It's either that, or they are more related to ostritches than to chimpanzees! *G*
Posted by Buffy | October 23, 2005 4:25 PM
Posted on October 23, 2005 16:25