Arrowman

* sigh * you say something nice about them, and they do this to you.

I disagree strongly with your assertion that breast cancer research can be considered a lower priority than other areas because we already have a reasonable treatment (mastectomy).

Society makes it harder for a woman to accept a mastectomy than it should be. That does not mean it is somehow not worthwhile trying to find ways of avoiding surgery because (a) surgery is unherently risky and (b) societal pressures aside, no-one wants their body cut up that way.

I find it hard to relate as a male, because I don't have an equivalent piece of apparatus other than Little Willy, who (occasionally) serves a real purpose other than decoration. But I think it's legitimate for women to want to keep their breasts.

Besides, a lot of the money spent on breast cancer research and education is about early detection and treatment through minor surgery - not a "cure" per se.

I do however agree with you in the story about your friend. She suffered incompetence and misdiagnosis; not some sort of anti-female bias. If I had had appendicitis or a cyst on Little Willy misdiagnosed by a female doctor, I'd be pretty unhappy but I wouldn't be blaming feminism.

Mad Kally

I keep staring at all the male doctors but as far as I can tell they are made of flesh and blood like the rest of us. They don't really walk on water either. (no matter what Rick says)

Dr Rick

<glides effortlessly over the water to keyboard>

I agree.

A malady that kills over 40,000 people each year in the US alone is more than just a cosmetic issue.

<gracefully dances back across lake>

Arrowman

So - Rick, Kally and seebs are out in a boat one day, fishing. After an hour or so, the beer runs out.

Kally volunteers to get some more; she steps over the side of the boat and walks across the water back to shore. Rick and seebs look at each other, impressed.

After another hour, seebs volunteers for the next beer run. Likewise, he walks across the water back to shore.

Finally, an hour later, it's Rick's turn. Seeing what the others have done, he steps over the side - and falls up to his neck in the water.

After they've done laughing, Kally turns to seebs and says "I guess he didn't notice the stepping stones!"

seebs replies, mystified - "What stepping stones?"

buddhagrrl

Well, despite the fact that this discussion has taken on dimensions I'm not comfortable with, I'll give it one last shot.

Kally: You are putting words in my mouth. I never once said anything about men being responsible for the issues I was attempting to discuss, and I have clarified several times that I never set out to indict the entire medical profession. Furthermore, how can you possibly criticize me(incorrectly, I might add) for generalizing that male doctors are out to get women, and then turn around and make the statement that "The uneducated clerks [at health-food stores] will tell you they have a remedy for cancer and every other bizzare claim you can dream of." Sounds kind of elitist to me. Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

Dr. Bochner: You seem to have an axe to grind and are very, very sensitive to imagined threats and criticisms of your profession. And your snide little modifications on race are highly inappropriate.

Arrowman: Thank you for being civil.

Ok, I'll pay that.

Being born with two heads is an abnormality. 80% of menstruating women suffering discomfort prior to their monthly cycles hardly seems abnormal, and is certainly not a pathology for most (although I did read that 2-3% of women have debilitating PMS symptoms).

My whole point was that based on my research (of which there has been a life-force-sucking amount), I see a lot of pathologizing of women's health issues, and I feel I've offered ample support of my position. I'm hardly pulling this stuff out of my ass. And for a supposed bunch of "free-thinkers," I see a lot of knee-jerk, snide remarks; people putting words into my mouth; and projection of personal biases onto what could have been a civilized discussion.

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: buddhagrrl ]</p>

Arrowman

Skeptic alert. The pejorative "elitist" is often used by supporters of fringe beliefs in response to critcism of their position from people in the "conventional" field. What is "elitist" about the assertion that sales clerks in drug stores (a) do not have a strong medical knowledge or training and (b) have been known to make unreasonable if not outlandish claims about the wares they sell? Kally's words may have, taken literally, been a generalisation, but they are a valid assertion nevertheless.

Call me "elitist" but I'll take my medical advice from a trained professional every day, thanks.

<strong>Dr. Bochner: You seem to have an axe to grind and are very, very sensitive to imagined threats and criticisms of your profession. And your snide little modifications on race are highly inappropriate.
</strong>

Seems to me that Dr Bochner is sensitive more to unsubstantiated assertions about "alternative medicine" and unreasonable conspiracy theories, and the adverse effects such things may have on the appropriate treatment of his patients, than to imagined attacks on his profession.

<strong>Arrowman: Thank you for being civil.
</strong>

I resent that! Here I am trying hard to just as argumentative and knee-jerk as everyone else....

<strong>Being born with two heads is an abnormality. 80% of menstruating women suffering discomfort prior to their monthly cycles hardly seems abnormal, and is certainly not a pathology for most (although I did read that 2-3% of women have debilitating PMS symptoms).
</strong>

...and 2-3% is not "out of the normal range"? This may be nitpicking and this argument has a lot more to it than the semantics of what is "abnormal" but otoh I don't think it's necessary to bend over backwards to avoid using words like "abnormality" in discussion of a female medical condition just for the sake of feminist correctness.

<strong>My whole point was that based on my research (of which there has been a life-force-sucking amount), I see a lot of pathologizing of women's health issues</strong>

OK. Let's hear more about your research.
PS I am also skeptical about people who use phrases like "women's health issues".

<strong>And for a supposed bunch of "free-thinkers," I see a lot of knee-jerk, snide remarks; people putting words into my mouth; and projection of personal biases onto what could have been a civilized discussion.</strong>

I see. So "free thinkers" aren't allowed to be skeptics. All you've got here is two medical professionals and a skeptic who don't take the sorts of things you have asserted, at face value. I think the conversation has been pretty civilised so far; don't mistake disagreement for rudeness - and don't use "rudeness" as a basis for critiquing the other side's arguments.

buddahgrl: I realise that much of the above could be characterised as an over-reaction to your posts and position, and perhaps I have even misrepresented you. By all means correct me.

It's just that from your opening post, you (mis)interpreted criticism of the doctor in question (who I suspect is just short of being a Sandra Cabot - style charlatan) combined with support of the common sense notion that a balanced diet is good for you, as being criticism of "what mainstream doctors suggest to treat ailments usually cooked up to sell some type of drug or another" ("personal bias" showing?) when in fact I (we) are criticising the "alternative" doctor, not the "mainstream drug peddlers". Was your "personal bias" showing?

Let's get it all out on the table.

Dr Rick

They hit their mark.

scigirl

Me too. I'm a scientist at heart, let's see some data!

Buddagirl - do you think that modern medicine has failed men as well in a similar way? For instance, if I went looking for "male syndromes" would I find evidence that doctors described these too?

I think you are correct to a point - but you need to change "woman" to "human." As far as I can tell, ritalin and prosac are overprescribed in both sexes. But again, I could be wrong - let's see some data.

You mean like ovarian cancer, pregnancy, and menopause?



There is a good reason to separate women's and men's health. In addition to the obvious biological differences, there are many diseases which do affect one or the other sex more. Lupus, for example, primarily affects women, and I think huntington's disease is more common in men. Also, diseases affect the sexes differently as well.

To me, this was an outright attack on medicine, and I can understand why Dr. Rick got pissed. I got pissed too. So. . . I guess when you make statements like that, with no qualifiers, or little smileys, or notes that say (I'm just ranting, I'm not serious), than expect to be beat down. Especially the forum you are in : science and skepticism.

I did find it amusing that you made it seem that people who sell more natural remedies are more likely to do the right thing, and not be swayed by money, than normal old boring MDs. Perhaps this is not what you meant.

I just did research on how much money products like St John's Wort are raking in (it's a TON) despite the fact that there is very few pieces of evidence to substantiate the claims made on the product.

I also find it amusing that people are more attracted to "natural" stuff. Anthrax toxin is natural too, but I ain't eating the shit!

/rant

scigirl

Mad Kally

Thanks Arrowman!

Actually it's far worse than just uneducated clerks.

Harm to Legitimate Health Professionals
A) Allowing diploma-mills to grant academic degrees in nutrition undermines the integrity of similar degrees earned in nutrition and related fields at accredited institutions. This occurs primarily because the public perceives nutrition experts as disagreeing about practically everything and, therefore, finds it difficult to believe anyone who claims to be a nutrition authority.

B) The proliferation of diploma-mill nutritionists with authentic-appearing academic degrees in nutrition seriously undermines the efforts of responsible health professionals to encourage people to adopt healthier dietary habits.

1) Dietitians and other health professionals are forced to spend more and more of their patient contact time debunking the unsubstantiated claims made by pseudo-nutritionist with authentic appearing credentials.

2) Many health consumers view individuals with PhDs in nutrition from diploma-mills as better qualified than registered dietitians and physicians at assessing a patient's nutritional needs. This can undermine patient care in hospitalized patients who often refuse to abandon inappropriate diets and supplements even when they are informed that they are compromising their health care.

<a href="http://www.ncahf.org/pp/dipmill.html" target="_blank"> National Counsel Against Health Fraud </a>

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Mad Kally ]</p>

Mad Kally

MORE:

Special Terms

FOOD FADDISM: A general term used to designate nutrition nonsense. Food faddism is characterized as much by its exaggerations as absolute errors about nutrition and diet.

QUACK: "Anyone who promotes medical schemes or remedies known to be false, or which are unproven, for a profit."* (U.S. House of Representatives, May, 1984). *In the opinion of the NCAHF offering such goods or services for a donation or through alleged "nonprofit" schemes still constitutes quackery.

NUTRITION QUACKERY: Utilizing invalid methods for assessing an individual's nutritional status, or promoting the use of food supplements, nutrition substances or special diets that lack reasonable scientific evidence of safety and effectiveness to cure, treat or prevent disease, increase longevity, enhance physical, sexual, or mental performance.

DEGREE MILL: "An organization that awards degrees without requiring its students to meet educational standards for such degrees established and traditionally followed by reputable institutions." (U.S. Office of Education, March 1974). "Degree mill" and "diploma mill" are used synonymously.