This talk has nothing to do with feminism. It's a large step in the future of medicine which is personalized health care. Excellent talk. Very eye opening.
Nellie K. Adaba yeah, I watch a lot of TH-cam videos of now dead people who went to natural medicine and died. At the end they were wishing they hadn’t been so stupid. Imagine that, pomegranate won’t cure your cancer. Oh well you left you child without a mother, but you went all natural.
It's funny how the definition "Women are not just men with boobs and tubes" applies only to circumstances where women have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
I started to watch this video being skeptic about how medicine could be harmful for women. But the points she made in the talk where so convincing that I don't understand why anyone who took the time to listen to her would disagree.
+The Bandog Disagree with what exactly? That women anatomy is different from men anatomy? This is not an opinion based talk and is bringing light to an important issue. I really don't see what there is to disagree on or debate on when the drug-dose gender gap is now a proven phenomenon.
Because someone who took the time to listen but also knows how drug testing and clinical trials work, knows that she's misrepresenting a lot of it. Drug testing in vitro is NOT done only on male cells (I have no idea where she got that from) and clinical trials in phase II and III include both men and women. I get her point but when I know that a few of the "facts" she presents are false, because I work in that field, it makes me wonder whether the facts she brings up from fields I'm less familiar with - are true.
+Andrzej R Exactly, and you're putting it softly. The whole talk has little to none actual scientific value. Since the statement about the trials is false (along with many others) - her whole argument and built up tension on the issue puffs away (if puffs is a word :D).
Yes, she made a lot of valid points. The fact that men’s metabolism works faster than women’s can have a big affect in the amount of medicine being taken. Specifically, she pointed out, Benadryl or drowsy medicine taken at night. When women wake up in the morning a lot of medicine is still in their system, which can affect their daily activities. An especially risky task for women could be driving in the morning, when the medication is still active in the body. Heart disease is the number one killer for both men and women. Women are often smaller than men, even down to the blood vessels around their hearts; therefore the way they develop disease is different. This fact leads to different heart attack warning signs and symptoms. For example, Alyson mentioned that men often complain of the feeling of something heavy on their chest or “crushing chest pain”, as women have a different symptoms and commonly say they just “don’t feel right”, and describe symptoms such as tiredness and they “sometimes can’t get enough air”. I was unaware that medicine was tested on only male cells, from rats and the initial stages of research all the way to human research. Considering the research and differences between men and women, this could make a significant improvement in medications.
So whenever somebody on TED says that men and women are equal, all the redditors start spamming the comments and disliking the video. Here's a woman that says there are important differences between men and women, and the trolls spam and downvote anyway! It's almost like you guys legit hate women or something
DeoMachina both Reddit and TH-cam are cesspools for people who hate anyone who talks about women’s issues. They think that because they are speaking about women’s issues that they also don’t believe that men’s issues exist. They are idiots who don’t realize that all problems need to be addressed and their problems aren’t the only ones in the world.
For all the people who are dislking this because it's "just a feminist rant" obviously haven't watched till the end because clearly this is about personalized healthcare for everyone. She is focusing on women because they are the ones which have been lumped in with men. She's not suggesting we take away men's research, only add women't research.
***** It doesn't matter what they're making it. It matters what it is. And it is a legitimate concern and should be taken seriously by the medical community.
oh my god a scientist who actually admits that women are substantially different than men in body functions. victory for people who actually care about facts and realitu
+Rhetorical Oracle And she's catching the shrapnel from the exact people you're speaking against, the gender politics pushers have given themselves such a terrible name that any person speaking about any one gender would immediately be mistaken as one of them, even when the points are legitimate.
I feel that when I was in the hospital suffering from a migraine that indeed I was given a drug that is not commonly used. The doctor even told me this! As a female i feel like i can relate to this video.I was given a medication that sent me into a reaction that was probably the worst of my life. I was restless beyond anything that I had ever experienced. This video showed many ethical situations.One in particular is that when the drugs are being made, the testers are not looking at the community as a whole. Everyone knows that the male body is a lot different than females and that our society has both male and females in it. It baffles me that when making these drugs, they only looked out for the males in this community. Also what about beneficence? This states that anyone in the medical field EVEN the ones making these drugs and testing them are supposed to look out for others in that it benefits them. By testing mainly males, I don't see how this is looking out for the benefit of females. Obviously changes are being made. I just had a first hand experience with this and I know it could have been prevented!!!
We all go to doctors with trust and blind faith? No, many of us have had plenty of experience with doctors who are incompetent idiots, and a lot of people know that the pharmaceutical companies are willing to misrepresent their products to make a buck even if it's detrimental to patient's health. I'm sure the rest of the talk will be good, but I just had to pause the video to comment on that remark.
Some pharms are very over prescribed with side effects on par or much greater than some illegal substances. I mean gosh just look at the oxy epidemics. And the false teachings that those in pain can't get addicted to oxy like meds. I think big pharma is a big scam. It will take a lot to convince me otherwise. Evidence that I have searched for years. My only conclusion is this evidence does not exist because pharmaceutical companies are full of it.
Nathan C. Bullshit like Title IX has nothing to do with equal opportunity. Neither does feminism. And as you can see, the idea that there are no differences between men and women hurts society. On a medical level, and even though no one will admit it, on a psychological level as well.
***** Oh of course people know. Or at least, educated people know. But even educated people can willingly ignore reality in order to push an agenda. I've seen it done time and time again. Males only became the standard because we were too afraid to test the fragile women. Coddling them is nothing new.
"THERE IS NO SEXISM, NO NEED FOR FEMINISM, MEN AND WOMEN ARE TREATED EQUALLY" Yet a mass of men mindlessly dislike ANY Ted Talk with the word "women" on the title before listening to it.
+Sexual Potatoes How do you know that It was a mass of men? What if it was a mixed bag of individuals who had specific reasons for disliking this video other than the title containing a word?
+Sexual Potatoes Like Neri Oxman's recent talk on this channel with mostly positive rating and many comments saying "TED should do more of this instead of SJW bullshit?" TED's been pushing these sort of agenda hard recently, it's neither technology, design nor entertainment, what TED is suppose to stand for, so it's only understandable there's a backlash against it when they do gender focused topics, if this video was uploaded a few years ago when TED had no agenda, it wouldn't get knee jerk dislike clicks for sure, but it's not quite the same any more, the idea we need more feminism because of this backlash is like saying we need to feed this person more nuts because he/she is showing severe allergy reaction to it.
+Sexual Potatoes You could not have watched the video befor writing this comment. Either this or you have no idea about anatomy, farmacological research, or intuition about a manipulative presentation. This woman talks politics and not science. I'm a last year medical student, and I may not be a genius, but this talk pours out so many false statements and such speculative talk, that you cannot relate the dislikes with the sexual issue. I actually think it has so many likes relatively, because some people were afraid to not make the gender equality issue more obvious and others wanted to counter it . But it is not the problem , the problem is the pseudo-science of this talk.
an excellent and very factual approach that l personally experienced after a bypass operation when l was treated with the standard medicine that gave an averse affect and with persistent argument l got them to change the type of management to my specific case l am sure you are in the right track God bless you you could make the difference in many sick people and their recovery program management
As a medical student, I’m amazed at the progress that humanity has made in understanding the human body and various pathologies. Of course this has come from hundreds of years of extensive research and incredible discoveries. However, it is clear that many models for research are not perfect and that all patients are not the same. Which as pointed out here has significant affects on women and diagnostic and treatment strategies developed for the “average” patient. I liked the point that women have often been excluded from research studies. It’s likely due to various reasons (such as historical assumptions as was mentioned) but the results are the same. There’s a significant lack of understanding of the female body in various pathologies due to a lack of specific research. So it seems reasonable to look at many old studies and seek to replicate them but with females as subjects. Recently there has been additional emphasis on understanding female patients (as well as other populations that have been historically marginalized). For example, we are taught that myocardial infarctions often present differently in women than men (such as pain in both arms, the stomach, back, neck, jaw; also sometimes without chest discomfort). While there’s obviously progress to be made, clearly many in healthcare also see this need and it’s been good to see that some changes have been made in medical education.
+Max Pharms I have no idea. But, we could start with an detailed examination of women who appear to be aging very well; Sela Ward, Raquel Welch and Christie Brinkley come to mind. I've made no plans for this weekend, so I'm volunteering.
+Waltham1892 The solution is people eating better, working out, balancing our lives, and taking care of their bodies so not as many women (or people in general) need medication in the first place. But that answer is just too obvious.
@thewallofsilence Even the FDA acknowledges (on their very website) that historically the vast majority of trials were conducted not just on males but white males. The inclusion of others in clinical trials is relatively new.
Dr. Alyson McGregor thank you! This TED talk was very informative, and I appreciate you advocating for half of our population and sharing the necessary information regarding female medicine. I did not know that 80% of drugs that are withdrawn from the market are due to the side effects on women. It makes sense that that is the case when you discussed how male models are the framework for medical research and that clinical trials are performed almost exclusively on men. That’s something that’s hard to wrap my mind around but having some knowledge of medical history it’s not totally shocking. Knowing that information now it’s kind of scary as someone going into medicine as this can result in myself prescribing medications to my female patients without a full understanding of their potential risks and benefits. The last thing I want to do it harm one of my patient’s, but with the lack of research in the female population I may not be aware of all the effects it could have. You brought up another great question and that is what are we missing? Men and women have different biological systems, which can affect how medications are metabolized and how they interact with the body. Men are mostly homogenous, while women aren’t as they have constant fluctuations of hormones coursing through their body which can impact the efficacy of a drug. Medical ethics stresses four pillars of practice. I want to focus on three of those: beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. For those who may not know, beneficence is the duty of all medical providers to promote the course of action that they deem is in the best interests of the patient. Simply put, do good. Non-maleficence on the other hand is the duty to do no harm or allow harm to be caused to a patient through neglect. And Justice means that we as providers ensure no one is unfairly disadvantaged when it comes to access to healthcare and unfortunately, we failed half of the population by performing medical research almost exclusively on men. Beneficence and Non-Maleficence go hand and hand on this topic. Without the adequate research, navigating the best treatment options as well as the risks and benefits of such treatments could lead to the patient receiving suboptimal care, which can ultimately expose the patient to unnecessary risks. I’m sure we’ve made progress in medical research, but it is important that we advocate for research on women’s health as well as making sure that women are represented fairly in clinical trials and other medical research moving forward.
Thank you Dr. Alyson McGregor for bringing so much great insight into the deficiencies of our current medical model regarding female medicine. I especially enjoyed your comparison to pediatrics not being the study of small humans and women not being the study of men with “boobs and tubes.” In the recent years we have focused on autonomy of female medicine and rightfully so. I appreciate Dr. McGregor commenting on the medical ethics principles of justice and non-maleficence in her TED talk. I first encountered this lack of research in women while I was writing a research paper on gestational diabetes (GDM). It was while writing this paper I realized not only is there a significant lack of research, but there is a significant lack of ambition for research. For example, women that are pregnant are generally screened for GDM at 24-28 weeks gestation. This screening requires drinking this horrible tasting liquid with a specific amount of glucose. I asked myself why in the year 2019, was there not an alternative to drinking this horrible liquid and taking multiple blood draws for the diagnosis of GDM? I at the time only found one published article with an alternative and it involved eating a specific amount of jellybeans. This study found that jellybeans could be used as an alternative with no significant difference in sensitivity or specificity. This article was published in 1999. Since then, there have only been a handful of articles or research reinforcing the alternative to that horrible drink. We as a scientific community need to prioritize the study of women’s health and focus on implementing better alternatives to women’s health. I know many women who hate going to a physician because they have correlated it to painful procedures or with dismissal of their complaints. We are failing half of our population when we stay content with the status quo.
Dr. Alyson McGregor brings up an excellent point in her TEDMED talk about women’s health and how nationally rooted paternalism has led to detrimental health consequences for women. From an ethical standpoint it is clear to see that the FDA has not taken every serious measure in clinical trials and drug development to, “do no harm” the principle of non-maleficence. Though drugs take on average 15-20 years to develop, it is astonishing to ponder that a majority of drugs are not properly trialed on male and female species equally, thus, pointing out a violation of another principle of justice. Harm and benefit analysis should be equally assessed in both males and females- evenly distributing the risks and information of side effects for an entire population. It is completely unethical that women would die in motor vehicle accidents than men because their dosages were not properly assessed in clinical trials or accounted for. This type of outcome could have been prevented and the FDA should take immediate action for drugs on the market currently and those in trial to be reassessed for proper dosage and investigation into side effects on all persons. There must be accountability and responsibility to prevent further harm to be done. I believe that Dr. McGregor had a great approach to the problem, by getting all parties involved will make sure that justice is preserved. By telling patients that they have the opportunity and should be encouraged to ask if a treatment is appropriate for me, is a powerful example of autonomy that a patient possesses. Real reform will take healthcare leaders, all medical staff, patients, and the government as well, because this is a pressing issue in that it is half the nation.
Dr. McGregor scratches the surface of what personalized medical care is all about. With years or research and genetic diagnosing, the medical field has discovered that different diseases not only affect patients based on their susceptibilities, but also based on their race, ethnicity, age, and gender. It is interesting to hear how so many medical studies have been based on males and that these same treatments are used to treat females. On an ethical perspective, we are not only hiding the truth from our patients, but we are also not giving them the best treatment for them specifically. I consider this issue to violate the concept of justice, in which we ensure fairness and equitable treatment to all. By focusing on males and using this data to treat the rest of the population, we are only benefitting male recipients and harming everyone else, females in particular. This is an eye opening talk because it opens the door to discussions between providers and their patients about the research behind their treatment, but also begs the question of research in the transgender population. If we are truly striving to provide equitable and fair treatment to all, no matter their age, gender, or race, we need to begin widening our scope of practice to identify specific treatments for each specific pocket of people in our society.
It’s amazing to me how much medical curriculum and ethical guidelines change every year. Understanding differences between men and women is critical in the development of effective treatments for both sexes. By recognizing and addressing these differences, doctors and researchers can improve outcomes for patients and ensure that everyone receives the best possible care. I’d think that the basic biological differences between men and women would be considered more often in drug development, disease treatment, and in medical education. I’m surprised to hear that these differences are still an afterthought in many circumstances. This doesn’t apply just to the differences between the sexes, either. My school over the last two years has emphasized the importance of practicing medicine for people of different skin tones. Historically, textbooks and medical instruction for dermatological findings have used primarily light skin tones as model examples. However, these dermatological findings often look much different on a person with darker skin than on a person with lighter skin. This can lead to increased rates of misdiagnoses in patients with dark skin. In order to combat these hidden contributors of inequality in healthcare, it is imperative that education, development, treatment, etc. are done with the consideration of biological differences between males and females, as well as the genetic differences between ethnicities.
I learned how important it is to consider gender differences in medical research and drug development through this lecture. Additionally, the lecture stated that male-dominated research was dominated by male-dominated research because the male body's hormone levels were consistent and the data were clearly displayed without confusion, but I thought that gender-based side effects might have decreased slightly if I had been a sensitive woman whose hormone levels continued to change to take into account the various variables arising from medical research and drug development.
“As Dr. McGregor explained, historically, women have been excluded from medical research due to concerns about their reproductive capabilities and potential harm to fetuses. However, this exclusion has meant that there is a lack of data on how medications and treatments affect women, resulting in the prescription of drugs that may not be safe or effective for women. Although this initial exclusion from research was done out of the ethical principle of Nonmaleficence, it has led to immense harm to women. Sometimes the intention to not cause harm produces unintended consequences in the future. This is one reason I think it is important to try to consider what is going cause the least amount of harm for someone not only right now but in the future as well. I would argue, that not including women, or other minorities, in medical research is unethical for several reasons. It perpetuates health disparities and can lead to unequal access to healthcare. Medical research is crucial for developing new treatments and therapies, and if certain groups are excluded from this research, they may not receive the same level of care as other groups. This can lead to disparities in healthcare outcomes and exacerbate existing health inequalities. In conclusion, not including women and minorities in medical studies is unethical because it perpetuates health disparities, can lead to a lack of understanding of how treatments affect different populations, and is discriminatory and a violation of their rights. It is important for medical research to be inclusive and representative of all populations to ensure that healthcare is equitable and just for all individuals. “
good point at the end. from a socialist pov, there are so many diversities between different races and people in general. simply dividing males and females are not nearly enough
I was about to comment that I was not surprised that this has so many down votes, as it has the word women in the title and people on TH-cam tend to be rather sexist. But then I realised how badly the talk was delivered.
that's an even more ridiculous reason to dislike a video than because you think it has a sexual agenda. whether a video is good or not should depend on the validity of the speaker's arguments, not on how they talk...
I think we need to do more research into the differences of females and males. She brings up a good point, that so many of the clinical studies and trials for medications are done on groups of almost exclusively males. This process obviously neglects the biological differences between the sexes, and it has had real world consequences in drug reactions and side effects. To start, we must come from a place of recognition that there are physiological differences between the sexes. Without this basic groundwork, we can’t have a productive conversation about why there are different outcomes between the two. With this in mind, we can then explore how biology has made the sexes respond differently to the same treatments or medications. There are already well documented differences in disease presentation between the sexes, a heart attack presenting as more abdominal pain instead of the “classis” crushing chest pain that is more common in men. These differences in presentation are only a part of why it is different to study the differences between the sexes. Women are experiencing the adverse outcomes of medications more than men, because they are often not a part of the clinical trials that get the drugs to market. So, when a drug hits the market, it has often only been tested males, and there is not enough data showing what the adverse effects will be in women. We need to recognize there are differences, and then take steps to make medicine more personalized, and it seems like a good first step would be studying males and females.
Adverse side effects from pharmaceuticals in women due to a lack of the clinical testing process represents a significant dilemma in the healthcare industry. Historically women have not been well represented in clinical trials due to a wide variety of factors such as hormonal cycle swings, potential reproductive issues and other issues that could complicate the researchers’ outcomes. With these practices, this has led to a lack of data, safety and efficacy on many drugs for women. More than just an issue of medical ethics, this is also one of social justice. Women, especially of color have been subject to discrimination and biases of systemic nature in healthcare. This lack of clival testing on women perpetuates this bias and further exacerbates existing disparities in healthcare. Women have the right and deserve access to safe and effective healthcare. Moreover, these special needs should be tailored to their uniqueness that can only be achieved through equitable representation in clinical research. Pharma companies should prioritize this responsibility of safety and well-being of all individuals with the potential use of their products. This includes ensuring the trials are designed and conducted in a way that represents the diversity that exists within our population. Lastly, Physicians and researchers alike have the responsibility to consider potential risks and benefits for treatment of different population and to moreover covey those risks clearly and transparently to their patients.
great points. but the title is too click baity and actually takes away from the main message. may have misleading connotations to those who read titles without listening to the entire talk.
wow everyone hates this............ that's not right. If there's a message to be given, let it be heard? Why are so many negative comments necessary about generalizing it into a "gender issue". The general public is strange.
This video is actually really interesting, I trust that her science is correct, and I'm actually unaware that they tested most "unisex" drugs only on one gender. But it makes sense where the current status quo stems from, considering the complication with a gender that has hormone fluctuation, it's like trying to do a science experiment on a boat in a storm vs still ground. This also opens up an interesting can of worms, on one hand she's getting hate for suggesting there needs to be more focus on women in the West, in 2015, which can infuriate a lot of people thanks to the work of gender politics pushers who have taken legitimate issues to infantilise to a point where even when serious issues are raised, people roll their eyes, it's like the boy who cried wolf, the variant cover version featuring the privileged girl who cried patriarchy. On the other hand, she's getting hate from the current wave feminists, how dare she suggests there are physiological differences between men and women other than reproductive organs, next thing you know she'll be saying women make difference choices due to those differences!
+Vaibhav Gupta Because something's about women it's suddenly an Anti-Feminist act to disagree? This video isn't even about feminism, I bet you literally clicked on the video to make that comment in the same way that some people clicked on the video to leave a dislike. I haven't watched it yet, but I hope it's about the findings that only using male mice in lab tests is harmful to women as they react differently to drugs and not some pseudo-science.
+Vaibhav Gupta All these idiots assuming the dislikes are from anti-feminists. The video isn't even about feminism or mentions it. You do know people can disagree/dislike a speaker for reasons besides feminism right?
Titus Orelius read the title, see the thumbnail, look at the no. of dislikes and then read my comment. instead of calling me an idiot. i never said this talk was about feminism.
Titus Orelius I drew that conclusion because the video is 15 minutes long, and I got here within 5 minutes of it being posted. It already had multiple dislikes. There is no way they could have see it.
Women being left behind in medical research is a perfect example of the ethical dilemmas that can come up in medicine. Those researchers that Dr. McGregor referred to who decided to avoid doing research on females of childbearing years because of potential dangers to the fetus were actively keeping their oath to “do no harm.” They believed that it was better to isolate testing to males for the sake of safety. What’s interesting is how this relates to the principle of justice. Everyone deserves to be treated equally, obviously. I bet those early researchers believed that as well, but they decided that a different ethical principle should be the final determining factor on their selection of research subjects. It seems like what Dr. McGregor is getting at here is the principle of beneficence. Beneficence means that a physician (or researcher, for that matter) has the obligation to do whatever they can for the well-being of their patients, even if that means engaging in something that has the risk to “do [some] harm.” Surgery is an excellent example. You are technically doing some harm to a patient, but the ultimate goal is a higher level of overall health. This is awesome what Dr. McGregor is doing, and I look forward to utilizing the resources she is putting together. I want to be the best physician I can for all my future patients, not just the males. It’s nice to know that I will have the resources to accomplish that goal.
More women volunteering to participate in dangerous clinical studies? Go right ahead... On a serious note though, test base diversity is a real issue in many fields and not just medicine. Medical trials are outsourced to third world countries. Psychological studies are conducted largely on college students freely available in vast quantities. There's a lot of room to improve all over the place.
+Cleodel I disagree. Nobody has time to watch all content, so it's quite useful to judge a book by its title. You don't have to watch all bad movies to know they are bad, most of the time you can tell only by the title. Same with TH-cam videos. In the last 30 talks, 2 others had a gendered title and both were quite bad and preaching to the choir: An Invitation to Men Who Want a Better World for Women. This Tennis Icon Paved the Way for Women in Sports. Why Gender Equality Is Good for Everyone - Men Included. is quite bad too, but the self-mocking makes it a bit less aggravating. Nonetheless, you have to watch 5 sec of that video to know it's preaching to a very precise demographic.
The fact she just kept repeating studies most often include only males is not true. Like it doesn't only include males as she says...although I do agree with everything else she said
Thank you for educating us, this is a.very sensitive topic but I think legally it may lead to severe anxiety and complications in between wife and husband their marital relation religion puja environmentand in turn on whole society.. Because in society everyone and everything is interlinked and one single bloodshed can lead to trauma in blood and body fluids waste management stress health disorders.. Being a mother is to conceive the future worlds destination and to prepare him by secure nutrients to face the world and make his own mark.. If we allow him to weakness right from womb I think there's severe error in the way we are perceiving things doing them and getting the results.. Children also face severe psychological stress and trauma after knowing this and may face lot of discrimination in their family.. So I think we can or should raise a voice against and warning by a statutory organization be given against misuse or overuse.. It is not to hurt to anyone s religious sentiments but to relieve few innocent people from unnecessary trauma due to existing laws that are working against their own self.. So I think we all can collectively stand against this and fight for true justice being liberation from evil and pollution..
It's because of the chronic neglect of the special needs of women in medicine, that in developed countries women only live 5 years longer on average than men.
Started off strong, but the "Gender" problem seemed to be a issue against "women." I would have liked it to be both, and the "racial factor." If you ever see labs they'll tell you to base results in Latino or African Americans, this can be an issue as well. Just a thought.
and 3 minutes in she mentions this I just found. Predictable I guess cause its such a good example. Seriously though. We need to test drugs on both genders.
Men don't have hormones that fluctuate like ladies, so they're easier to study. Drug companies are also becoming afraid to test on ladies because they could become pregnant and it causes liability issues.
A recent Government Accountability study revealed that 80 percent of the drugs withdrawn from the market are due to side effects on women. So let's think about that for a minute. Why are we discovering side effects on women only after a drug has been released to the market? Do you know that it takes years for a drug to go from an idea to being tested on cells in a laboratory, to animal studies, to then clinical trials on humans, finally to go through a regulatory approval process, to be available for your doctor to prescribe to you?
Pretty much anything you are taking which alters the hormonal makeup of your body will change the way you respond to food and drugs, however the degree of change depends on the individual :)
Was it just me or was she trying to put way more dama into that then there needed to be. That could have easily be a drama free 3 min explanation that any rational person would have known.
This woman makes the situation sound very grave. So let me get this straight, are there droves of women dropping dead due to drugs only being tested on men?
DeoMachina No, she didn't. But then I didn't say she did. I asked a question. She did however present this as a grave problem. I'm just wondering how grave it can be in the light of the fact that women in general have better health than men.
+alienzen Life expectancy of women is generally longer than men yes, but that doesn't mean that applying male tested drugs on female organisms won't cause complications. It's grave in the sense that medicine up until this point has been woefully inaccurate in this regard. That doesn't mean women are dropping like flies. In fact, McGregor mentions that a large number of drugs are pulled from the market because of observed adverse reactions when women take them.
This talk didn't seem to be so bad. I understand some points. HOWEVER, she has the audacity to go off and start encouraging women's specific centers and studies. Excuse me, the fact that women's only centers and studies exist is troubling to me. At least such things can get funding.
It wouldn't matter to me whether it's a man or a woman who did this speech - what matters is what's being said, the credentials of the person saying it and the availability of data supporting the argument! This is not a "gender study class" - this is medicine!
There's a difference between social and economical equality than physical it's fairly obvious that we are different physically so there wouldn't be a problem
what if i told you that everyone is unique, not just in DNA but also in gut flora, in retroviruses, in diet, in environment. what if i told you that even identical twins will have mild differences in medication effect? this men vs women is easy, but it is also a false narrative. the same things could be seen between people who are vegetarians vs. heavy meat diet people. the same thing is true of white people living near the poles vs dark skinned people living near the equator. to focus on gender is to lose sight of the reality, that people are unique, and that drugs do not work the same on all people. there is a real reason to focus medical trials on extending the health of males. men die much earlier than women, and are responsible for the majority of the production of real wealth. extending the working lives of males increases production, and benefits women as well as men.
+Tyler Wyat Why did you do that? - I mean, why did you dislike the video? If you haven't even watched it until the end, who knows what else she could have said, that you would approve of. I would really want to know why you didn't like it? What was the reason for you not liking her talk at this early time? Feel free to answer me. :)
I never said I didn't watch it all, I only told you that I disliked it at 3 minutes because I knew where it was going. She wasted everyone's time and money (being a member for TED talks is not cheap it's a few thousand for the lowest pass) and gave nothing of substance. She's talking about drugs that are NOT modern. Male cells, male animals, etc are not strictly used in the field at all and haven't for quite sometime. If she's going to speak about processes she doesn't understand, especially when biochemists and medicinal chemists are watching this, then she deserves a dislike. Also feminazi.
+Tyler Wyat Ok alright, at least I get now that you did have your reasons, even though I don't appreciate that "oh-look-the-word-woman-is-in-the-title-it-must-be-a-feminist-talk-I'm-just-gonna-dislike-this-video-without-even-watching-it-although-it-could-have-nothing-to-do-with-it"-attitude...
Maybe she should consider making a better argument than dropping the feminazi bomb right off the bat. That's poor speaking strategy and my "assumption" (based on 3 minutes of her talking) was correct.
I seriously get tied of these women trying to make everything seem like it victimises women.... I'm a professional working in medicine, and with experience in medical research, and I can tell you everything this woman is saying is untrue. Drugs have had to pass testing on BOTH female and male cohorts in most, if not all, western countries since the 90's. Atypical pain is called 'atypical' because it doesn't follow a common sense pathway. For example, women often have jaw pain and nausea with 'heart attacks', while males have crushing chest pain DIRECTLY over their heart. It's atypical because it doesn't make as much intuitive sense. Women have better mortality and morbidity across the board, for the most part. WAY more funding goes into womens health than mens. Taking attention away from these major, indisputable facts to talk about the fallacy of female victimhood in medicine is utterly sexist against the ACTUAL plight mens health issues face around the world....
Men's health problems don't matter because men are regarded as less valuable and disposable. Even if there's some truth in what she was saying men still don't live as long as women. Society always regards women as victims no matter what the situation.
14:34 "This is not just about improving medical care for women, this is about personalised, individualized healthcare for everyone" Before anyone on either side of the gender debate thinks this is a charged video and blames men/women for some bullshit, watch it. It's not supporting a feminist agenda, it's not supporting an anti-feminist agenda. It's simply pointing out that we don't test our drugs thoroughly enough.
+Fridgeworks "personalised, individualized healthcare" is absurdly unfeasible at this point. We're barely scraping by as it is. In a society with practically limitless supplies, sure, bring on the healthcare that can cater _exactly_ to the individual. At this point I'm highly dubious as to the feasibility of such a suggestion.
Fridgeworks As I've said many times before, women are simply harder to conduct good science on. She even says it herself. We don't have the resources to double check everything on women, because it's very much harder to do so, since their hormones are consistently fucking with everything. If feasible, yes, we should include women. As it stands, we're not dealing with evil sexism of any kind. It's simply biology and basic finance - the eternal enemies of feminism (which I realise she's not affiliating herself with explicitly in this video).
AsifIcarebear3 I agree with you, however, it should be at least a small part of the sample size IMO. Nothing to do with sexism, but it's kind of like creating a cancer drug without human trials.
Fridgeworks But whether it's 50/50 or a small part is irrelevant. It's very difficult to make good science on women - and the amount of drugs that would outright kill, disable, or at least severely hurt women is so small that it doesn't make financial sense to make these tests. It really is nothing like your analogy. Men and women are, ultimately, by and large, pretty damn similar. Yes, there are key differences, but at this point (and let's hope that changes) it simply doesn't make sense to spend a dickload of time on a group of people who are notoriously hard to get scientific, physiological results out of. Spending all that time and money on women may actually hurt women too, by the way, because research would be slowed to a crawl, or you might simply not get good, reliable results and drugs.
+KeinenGott Some people see "for Women", immediately get triggered and start to have feminism related PTSD, even if it has nothing to do with radical feminism. If anything it's the opposite, because it talks about pharmacological gender differences.
+KeinenGott Her points aren't really that good. We experiment with drugs on men because - as she even points out - men are more stable hormonally. Women are all fucked up all the time, because that's how women are. It's not sexism, which fortunately she didn't outright say, it's simply biology and finance.
+KeinenGott I think people probably disliked this because people are tired of non-gendered things being turned into gendered discussions, i.e stop harassment for women, stop domestic abuse for women, don't rape women, etc. etc.. Feminists, mainly, have used the phrase "for women" about issues that both genders face so much, that it becomes an instinctive reaction to recoil. I'm not excusing the automatic reaction, but I think this is an explanation.
I've actually seen old (as in a few decades old) medical textbooks which teach that women's complaints are mainly "hysterical" and that menstrual pains and menopause symptoms are imaginary. There is still some of that underlying attitude in some medical professionals. That's beside the facts these speaker is talking about - that most medical studies were done on men and the assumption that women will have the same result is detrimental.
Those who gave this video a thumbs down did so based on the title and didn't watch the video. Brothers; you can be anti-feminist, just don't be a knee-jerk anti-feminist.
*+Waltham1892+* Yes, they should have titled it better. TED often has sensationalist titles that don't do the talks justice. I would argue that the majority of _"XYZ negatively affects women"_ talks are highly selective in how their narrative is spun, sometimes to an insulting degree. So I understand the backlash.
+Adrian I'm afraid to admit that I'm one of those who has been posting negative comments on TED videos which I've felt were more a discussion of feminist issues (or the monologue of one specific woman) rather than something closer to the true mission of TED. That being said, I don't think they miss-titled this video. I think people are over-reacting to it.
Waltham1892 Yeah ok, this particular video is actually aptly titled (in isolation); the problem is what's associated with this _"for women"_ pattern. Quite a few talks, irrespective of their topic, have titles that read like click-bait or advertisement and I have doubts the speakers themselves came up with them.
+Waltham1892 Or just don't be ideological. I oppose feminism because it makes absurd claims that are not reflected in reality and then browbeats people into accepting those claims as fact. It's authoritarian and I don't like it. But the anti-feminist camp has it's own menagerie of problems too. If you aren't even willing to at least listen to a position that might possibly perhaps be opposite to your own (even when it turns out it's not,) you have some course corrections to make.
Strix I find most anti-feminists are sexually frustrated teenage boys and men got the short end in their divorces. Not being a sexually frustrated teenage boy, and having gotten over my divorce, I find their arguments unpersuasive. My position is now that of a mature male. Specifically, I don't whine and I don't cloak my anger and frustration in over long monologues.
I think what this doctor is saying is is important. Not least the point she makes about drugs remaining in the female system for longer than in males due to slower metabolism, and especially If you consider the build up of drugs within a system (like anti depressants and side effects, for example). Simply to draw an analogy, One Size Fits All clothing is simply preposterous, and we all know it. Shared to Google+.
***** Maybe we're just tired of having gender politics jammed down our throats? That and being ignored while women's slightest complaints, real or imagined get instant attention, sympathy, and action.
She really pointed out aspects I haven’t thought about before. I always wondered why some diseases are more prevalent in men than women or vice versa, so why medications are created or treated differently
As a woman in medical school this talk really resonated with me, especially because I too am interested in emergency medicine. Before listening, I had no idea that there is little representation of women in drug studies and research done on physiological differences between men and women. I had never thought about the fact that men do not have the same processes going on compared to women such as hormone fluctuations, menstrual cycles, etc and how that could alter drug metabolism as Dr. McGregor mentioned. We are taught in school the innerworkings of the human body and very rarely do we discuss the differences between men and women except for reproductive organs which Dr. McGregor pointed out as well. This lack of representation calls into question many of the ethical tenets that doctors are taught to abide by when practicing. First, is the most obvious to me which is beneficence or making sure that your patient receives the best care possible based on the studies that have been done that we base our medical decisions on. Now knowing that this evidence we are using is extremely skewed towards the male population makes it incomplete and biased resulting in women receiving suboptimal care. Another ethical principle that is called into question is justice, which requires healthcare providers to provide care fairly and equitably to all patients. Since women make up half of the population, treating them with medications that have not been adequately tested for them and the risks that come along with them is violating their justice. Physicians are obligated to get informed consent from all of their patients for treatment and that includes providing them all of the information about their treatments including risks and side effects. If there is not accurate information about these risks for women then the consent physicians are getting cannot be labeled as “adequately informed” and therefore is a violation of the patient’s autonomy in their medical decision making. The best way to address these medical shortcomings would be to increase the presence of women in medication testing studies as well as more research to be done about the physiological differences between men and women in all aspects, not just the reproductive systems. Additionally, drug companies and regulatory bodies need to be more transparent with their research and any side effects they found in women versus men. These are just a couple changes that could be made to bring more equality to the medical treatment of women and allow physicians to make better informed decisions about the best treatment for their patients in general. Overall, I learned a lot from this talk and it gave me some things to consider as I pursue a future in the medical field and how to best treat and care for my patients.
Why are there so many dislikes? I mean this is one of the most mind-opening TED talk I've ever seen, and something I've never even thought of, like at all!
The amount of dislikes here is disgusting. These are legitimate medical concerns.
+Jeffrey Berry Being anti-anything-looking-similar-to-feminism is a trend these days
It's not even feminism! This is real science!
+Ruslan Mikhalev But isn't saying that women and men are actually different basically anti-feminist?
+jacga
No, anti feminism is claiming they shouldn't have the same rights due to their gender....
GorillaGuerilla I know. I was just being cynical.
This talk has nothing to do with feminism. It's a large step in the future of medicine which is personalized health care. Excellent talk. Very eye opening.
+Michelle Prioriello I still hatew medicine or what they call prescribed drugs whehter it was made for men or women, I prrefer natural medicine.
Nellie K. Adaba yeah, I watch a lot of TH-cam videos of now dead people who went to natural medicine and died. At the end they were wishing they hadn’t been so stupid. Imagine that, pomegranate won’t cure your cancer. Oh well you left you child without a mother, but you went all natural.
It's funny how the definition "Women are not just men with boobs and tubes" applies only to circumstances where women have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
Wth dude? This isn't about your stupid macho mindset. It's about better health care for everyone.
Happens both ways. There's a lot of interest in moving toward gender equality bc men are just as affected by sexism as women are.
+okiluxs He is right, even if it's true that most Indians don't shower as often as they should.
+chamade166
+chamade166 wow you're fucking hilarious.
I started to watch this video being skeptic about how medicine could be harmful for women. But the points she made in the talk where so convincing that I don't understand why anyone who took the time to listen to her would disagree.
Yeah exactly. I read the comments and its disgusting
+The Bandog Disagree with what exactly? That women anatomy is different from men anatomy? This is not an opinion based talk and is bringing light to an important issue. I really don't see what there is to disagree on or debate on when the drug-dose gender gap is now a proven phenomenon.
Because someone who took the time to listen but also knows how drug testing and clinical trials work, knows that she's misrepresenting a lot of it. Drug testing in vitro is NOT done only on male cells (I have no idea where she got that from) and clinical trials in phase II and III include both men and women. I get her point but when I know that a few of the "facts" she presents are false, because I work in that field, it makes me wonder whether the facts she brings up from fields I'm less familiar with - are true.
+Andrzej R Exactly, and you're putting it softly. The whole talk has little to none actual scientific value. Since the statement about the trials is false (along with many others) - her whole argument and built up tension on the issue puffs away (if puffs is a word :D).
Yes, she made a lot of valid points. The fact that men’s metabolism works faster than women’s can have a big affect in the amount of medicine being taken. Specifically, she pointed out, Benadryl or drowsy medicine taken at night. When women wake up in the morning a lot of medicine is still in their system, which can affect their daily activities. An especially risky task for women could be driving in the morning, when the medication is still active in the body.
Heart disease is the number one killer for both men and women. Women are often smaller than men, even down to the blood vessels around their hearts; therefore the way they develop disease is different. This fact leads to different heart attack warning signs and symptoms. For example, Alyson mentioned that men often complain of the feeling of something heavy on their chest or “crushing chest pain”, as women have a different symptoms and commonly say they just “don’t feel right”, and describe symptoms such as tiredness and they “sometimes can’t get enough air”.
I was unaware that medicine was tested on only male cells, from rats and the initial stages of research all the way to human research. Considering the research and differences between men and women, this could make a significant improvement in medications.
Took us till the 21st century to realize that women are different from men.
Gee imagine that.
So whenever somebody on TED says that men and women are equal, all the redditors start spamming the comments and disliking the video.
Here's a woman that says there are important differences between men and women, and the trolls spam and downvote anyway!
It's almost like you guys legit hate women or something
DeoMachina both Reddit and TH-cam are cesspools for people who hate anyone who talks about women’s issues. They think that because they are speaking about women’s issues that they also don’t believe that men’s issues exist. They are idiots who don’t realize that all problems need to be addressed and their problems aren’t the only ones in the world.
misogynists. deeply rooted misogyny.
For all the people who are dislking this because it's "just a feminist rant" obviously haven't watched till the end because clearly this is about personalized healthcare for everyone. She is focusing on women because they are the ones which have been lumped in with men. She's not suggesting we take away men's research, only add women't research.
More precision in Medical Science; why are people opposed to this?
+Mike Black Because women making it a gendered issue, again.
+dattebenforcer That certainly happens, but I disagree that's what is happening here.
*****
It doesn't matter what they're making it. It matters what it is. And it is a legitimate concern and should be taken seriously by the medical community.
Mike Black
I wish that were true, but sadly it isn't
*****
And my point is proven.
Women think side effects of medicine and treatments only affect them and not men.
ifs
Wow this is a really good point and issue to raise, I never thought of this.
oh my god a scientist who actually admits that women are substantially different than men in body functions. victory for people who actually care about facts and realitu
+Rhetorical Oracle What's a realitu?
typo reality
+Rhetorical Oracle Scientists have known that for centuries, bro.
Sexual Potatoes the point is that political agenda's have mostly resulted in anti-scientific attitudes toward differences in genders.
+Rhetorical Oracle And she's catching the shrapnel from the exact people you're speaking against, the gender politics pushers have given themselves such a terrible name that any person speaking about any one gender would immediately be mistaken as one of them, even when the points are legitimate.
I feel that when I was in the hospital suffering from a migraine that indeed I was given a drug that is not commonly used. The doctor even told me this! As a female i feel like i can relate to this video.I was given a medication that sent me into a reaction that was probably the worst of my life. I was restless beyond anything that I had ever experienced. This video showed many ethical situations.One in particular is that when the drugs are being made, the testers are not looking at the community as a whole. Everyone knows that the male body is a lot different than females and that our society has both male and females in it. It baffles me that when making these drugs, they only looked out for the males in this community. Also what about beneficence? This states that anyone in the medical field EVEN the ones making these drugs and testing them are supposed to look out for others in that it benefits them. By testing mainly males, I don't see how this is looking out for the benefit of females. Obviously changes are being made. I just had a first hand experience with this and I know it could have been prevented!!!
Thumbs up if you had diarrhea at least once in your life!
+Ganesha I have it right now.
+Malcolm Pagett yikes
We all go to doctors with trust and blind faith? No, many of us have had plenty of experience with doctors who are incompetent idiots, and a lot of people know that the pharmaceutical companies are willing to misrepresent their products to make a buck even if it's detrimental to patient's health. I'm sure the rest of the talk will be good, but I just had to pause the video to comment on that remark.
Some pharms are very over prescribed with side effects on par or much greater than some illegal substances. I mean gosh just look at the oxy epidemics. And the false teachings that those in pain can't get addicted to oxy like meds. I think big pharma is a big scam. It will take a lot to convince me otherwise. Evidence that I have searched for years. My only conclusion is this evidence does not exist because pharmaceutical companies are full of it.
Good presentation. I wonder if such a distinction is also useful to make between people of different racial backgrounds.
"We thought there were no differences between men and women"
That's what forced equality does to ya.
+poiumty I think gender equality, now this is crazy, may be about equal opportunity and rights. NOT, how to test drugs.
+Nathan C. Eh, depends on which proponents you talk to. There are some people really far down that rabbit hole who make some pretty stunning claims.
Nathan C. Bullshit like Title IX has nothing to do with equal opportunity. Neither does feminism.
And as you can see, the idea that there are no differences between men and women hurts society. On a medical level, and even though no one will admit it, on a psychological level as well.
***** Oh of course people know. Or at least, educated people know. But even educated people can willingly ignore reality in order to push an agenda.
I've seen it done time and time again.
Males only became the standard because we were too afraid to test the fragile women. Coddling them is nothing new.
***** I want to argue that, but then I look at some white knights and I can't help but agree that women aren't the only ones to blame.
"THERE IS NO SEXISM, NO NEED FOR FEMINISM, MEN AND WOMEN ARE TREATED EQUALLY"
Yet a mass of men mindlessly dislike ANY Ted Talk with the word "women" on the title before listening to it.
+Sexual Potatoes
How do you know that It was a mass of men? What if it was a mixed bag of individuals who had specific reasons for disliking this video other than the title containing a word?
+Sexual Potatoes Like Neri Oxman's recent talk on this channel with mostly positive rating and many comments saying "TED should do more of this instead of SJW bullshit?"
TED's been pushing these sort of agenda hard recently, it's neither technology, design nor entertainment, what TED is suppose to stand for, so it's only understandable there's a backlash against it when they do gender focused topics, if this video was uploaded a few years ago when TED had no agenda, it wouldn't get knee jerk dislike clicks for sure, but it's not quite the same any more, the idea we need more feminism because of this backlash is like saying we need to feed this person more nuts because he/she is showing severe allergy reaction to it.
Do you have a source for this?
+Sexual Potatoes You could not have watched the video befor writing this comment. Either this or you have no idea about anatomy, farmacological research, or intuition about a manipulative presentation. This woman talks politics and not science. I'm a last year medical student, and I may not be a genius, but this talk pours out so many false statements and such speculative talk, that you cannot relate the dislikes with the sexual issue. I actually think it has so many likes relatively, because some people were afraid to not make the gender equality issue more obvious and others wanted to counter it . But it is not the problem , the problem is the pseudo-science of this talk.
+Petko Ditchev are you seriously saying that women don't need to be tested for medicine separately from men as children are from adults?
an excellent and very factual approach that l personally experienced after a bypass operation when l was treated with the standard medicine that gave an averse affect and with persistent argument l got them to change the type of management to my specific case l am sure you are in the right track God bless you you could make the difference in many sick people and their recovery program management
As a medical student, I’m amazed at the progress that humanity has made in understanding the human body and various pathologies. Of course this has come from hundreds of years of extensive research and incredible discoveries. However, it is clear that many models for research are not perfect and that all patients are not the same. Which as pointed out here has significant affects on women and diagnostic and treatment strategies developed for the “average” patient.
I liked the point that women have often been excluded from research studies. It’s likely due to various reasons (such as historical assumptions as was mentioned) but the results are the same. There’s a significant lack of understanding of the female body in various pathologies due to a lack of specific research. So it seems reasonable to look at many old studies and seek to replicate them but with females as subjects.
Recently there has been additional emphasis on understanding female patients (as well as other populations that have been historically marginalized). For example, we are taught that myocardial infarctions often present differently in women than men (such as pain in both arms, the stomach, back, neck, jaw; also sometimes without chest discomfort). While there’s obviously progress to be made, clearly many in healthcare also see this need and it’s been good to see that some changes have been made in medical education.
Maybe the solution isn't designing better drugs, maybe its designing easier to maintain women.
Just sayin...
how do you propose that?
+Max Pharms I have no idea. But, we could start with an detailed examination of women who appear to be aging very well; Sela Ward, Raquel Welch and Christie Brinkley come to mind.
I've made no plans for this weekend, so I'm volunteering.
+Waltham1892 The solution is people eating better, working out, balancing our lives, and taking care of their bodies so not as many women (or people in general) need medication in the first place. But that answer is just too obvious.
***** You completely missed the joke.
What do I have to do, put flashing red lights on it?
Waltham1892 It's only a joke if it's actually funny.
Why are there so many dislikes? This video is talking about common sense.
@thewallofsilence Even the FDA acknowledges (on their very website) that historically the vast majority of trials were conducted not just on males but white males. The inclusion of others in clinical trials is relatively new.
Dr. Alyson McGregor thank you! This TED talk was very informative, and I appreciate you advocating for half of our population and sharing the necessary information regarding female medicine. I did not know that 80% of drugs that are withdrawn from the market are due to the side effects on women. It makes sense that that is the case when you discussed how male models are the framework for medical research and that clinical trials are performed almost exclusively on men. That’s something that’s hard to wrap my mind around but having some knowledge of medical history it’s not totally shocking. Knowing that information now it’s kind of scary as someone going into medicine as this can result in myself prescribing medications to my female patients without a full understanding of their potential risks and benefits. The last thing I want to do it harm one of my patient’s, but with the lack of research in the female population I may not be aware of all the effects it could have. You brought up another great question and that is what are we missing? Men and women have different biological systems, which can affect how medications are metabolized and how they interact with the body. Men are mostly homogenous, while women aren’t as they have constant fluctuations of hormones coursing through their body which can impact the efficacy of a drug. Medical ethics stresses four pillars of practice. I want to focus on three of those: beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. For those who may not know, beneficence is the duty of all medical providers to promote the course of action that they deem is in the best interests of the patient. Simply put, do good. Non-maleficence on the other hand is the duty to do no harm or allow harm to be caused to a patient through neglect. And Justice means that we as providers ensure no one is unfairly disadvantaged when it comes to access to healthcare and unfortunately, we failed half of the population by performing medical research almost exclusively on men. Beneficence and Non-Maleficence go hand and hand on this topic. Without the adequate research, navigating the best treatment options as well as the risks and benefits of such treatments could lead to the patient receiving suboptimal care, which can ultimately expose the patient to unnecessary risks. I’m sure we’ve made progress in medical research, but it is important that we advocate for research on women’s health as well as making sure that women are represented fairly in clinical trials and other medical research moving forward.
Got an ethics paper due tomorrow?
Thank you Dr. Alyson McGregor for bringing so much great insight into the deficiencies of our current medical model regarding female medicine. I especially enjoyed your comparison to pediatrics not being the study of small humans and women not being the study of men with “boobs and tubes.” In the recent years we have focused on autonomy of female medicine and rightfully so. I appreciate Dr. McGregor commenting on the medical ethics principles of justice and non-maleficence in her TED talk. I first encountered this lack of research in women while I was writing a research paper on gestational diabetes (GDM). It was while writing this paper I realized not only is there a significant lack of research, but there is a significant lack of ambition for research. For example, women that are pregnant are generally screened for GDM at 24-28 weeks gestation. This screening requires drinking this horrible tasting liquid with a specific amount of glucose. I asked myself why in the year 2019, was there not an alternative to drinking this horrible liquid and taking multiple blood draws for the diagnosis of GDM? I at the time only found one published article with an alternative and it involved eating a specific amount of jellybeans. This study found that jellybeans could be used as an alternative with no significant difference in sensitivity or specificity. This article was published in 1999. Since then, there have only been a handful of articles or research reinforcing the alternative to that horrible drink. We as a scientific community need to prioritize the study of women’s health and focus on implementing better alternatives to women’s health. I know many women who hate going to a physician because they have correlated it to painful procedures or with dismissal of their complaints. We are failing half of our population when we stay content with the status quo.
Dr. Alyson McGregor brings up an excellent point in her TEDMED talk about women’s health and how nationally rooted paternalism has led to detrimental health consequences for women. From an ethical standpoint it is clear to see that the FDA has not taken every serious measure in clinical trials and drug development to, “do no harm” the principle of non-maleficence. Though drugs take on average 15-20 years to develop, it is astonishing to ponder that a majority of drugs are not properly trialed on male and female species equally, thus, pointing out a violation of another principle of justice. Harm and benefit analysis should be equally assessed in both males and females- evenly distributing the risks and information of side effects for an entire population. It is completely unethical that women would die in motor vehicle accidents than men because their dosages were not properly assessed in clinical trials or accounted for. This type of outcome could have been prevented and the FDA should take immediate action for drugs on the market currently and those in trial to be reassessed for proper dosage and investigation into side effects on all persons. There must be accountability and responsibility to prevent further harm to be done. I believe that Dr. McGregor had a great approach to the problem, by getting all parties involved will make sure that justice is preserved. By telling patients that they have the opportunity and should be encouraged to ask if a treatment is appropriate for me, is a powerful example of autonomy that a patient possesses. Real reform will take healthcare leaders, all medical staff, patients, and the government as well, because this is a pressing issue in that it is half the nation.
It's even harder right now that we are being forced the view that the differences between man and women are merely social constructs.
She makes me uncomfortable with her long stressing pauses... but of course, she's right and I up-voted it.
Dr. McGregor scratches the surface of what personalized medical care is all about. With years or research and genetic diagnosing, the medical field has discovered that different diseases not only affect patients based on their susceptibilities, but also based on their race, ethnicity, age, and gender. It is interesting to hear how so many medical studies have been based on males and that these same treatments are used to treat females. On an ethical perspective, we are not only hiding the truth from our patients, but we are also not giving them the best treatment for them specifically. I consider this issue to violate the concept of justice, in which we ensure fairness and equitable treatment to all. By focusing on males and using this data to treat the rest of the population, we are only benefitting male recipients and harming everyone else, females in particular. This is an eye opening talk because it opens the door to discussions between providers and their patients about the research behind their treatment, but also begs the question of research in the transgender population. If we are truly striving to provide equitable and fair treatment to all, no matter their age, gender, or race, we need to begin widening our scope of practice to identify specific treatments for each specific pocket of people in our society.
It’s amazing to me how much medical curriculum and ethical guidelines change every year. Understanding differences between men and women is critical in the development of effective treatments for both sexes. By recognizing and addressing these differences, doctors and researchers can improve outcomes for patients and ensure that everyone receives the best possible care. I’d think that the basic biological differences between men and women would be considered more often in drug development, disease treatment, and in medical education. I’m surprised to hear that these differences are still an afterthought in many circumstances. This doesn’t apply just to the differences between the sexes, either. My school over the last two years has emphasized the importance of practicing medicine for people of different skin tones. Historically, textbooks and medical instruction for dermatological findings have used primarily light skin tones as model examples. However, these dermatological findings often look much different on a person with darker skin than on a person with lighter skin. This can lead to increased rates of misdiagnoses in patients with dark skin. In order to combat these hidden contributors of inequality in healthcare, it is imperative that education, development, treatment, etc. are done with the consideration of biological differences between males and females, as well as the genetic differences between ethnicities.
I learned how important it is to consider gender differences in medical research and drug development through this lecture. Additionally, the lecture stated that male-dominated research was dominated by male-dominated research because the male body's hormone levels were consistent and the data were clearly displayed without confusion, but I thought that gender-based side effects might have decreased slightly if I had been a sensitive woman whose hormone levels continued to change to take into account the various variables arising from medical research and drug development.
Individualised healthcare is the future!
“As Dr. McGregor explained, historically, women have been excluded from medical research due to concerns about their reproductive capabilities and potential harm to fetuses. However, this exclusion has meant that there is a lack of data on how medications and treatments affect women, resulting in the prescription of drugs that may not be safe or effective for women. Although this initial exclusion from research was done out of the ethical principle of Nonmaleficence, it has led to immense harm to women. Sometimes the intention to not cause harm produces unintended consequences in the future. This is one reason I think it is important to try to consider what is going cause the least amount of harm for someone not only right now but in the future as well. I would argue, that not including women, or other minorities, in medical research is unethical for several reasons. It perpetuates health disparities and can lead to unequal access to healthcare. Medical research is crucial for developing new treatments and therapies, and if certain groups are excluded from this research, they may not receive the same level of care as other groups. This can lead to disparities in healthcare outcomes and exacerbate existing health inequalities. In conclusion, not including women and minorities in medical studies is unethical because it perpetuates health disparities, can lead to a lack of understanding of how treatments affect different populations, and is discriminatory and a violation of their rights. It is important for medical research to be inclusive and representative of all populations to ensure that healthcare is equitable and just for all individuals. “
good point at the end. from a socialist pov, there are so many diversities between different races and people in general. simply dividing males and females are not nearly enough
I was about to comment that I was not surprised that this has so many down votes, as it has the word women in the title and people on TH-cam tend to be rather sexist. But then I realised how badly the talk was delivered.
I think the downvotes are also because of her speech pattern. It's pretty odd.
... Which is related to sexism.
Cleodel What does her speech pattern have to do with her being a female??? If she was a male speaking the same way, I would still be annoyed.
that's an even more ridiculous reason to dislike a video than because you think it has a sexual agenda. whether a video is good or not should depend on the validity of the speaker's arguments, not on how they talk...
I agree. It kinda sounded like blaming. She probably didn't mean it that way though.
+AFIGHTCHANNEL You should read about female podcasters' experiences with harassment and then come back to me.
I think we need to do more research into the differences of females and males. She brings up a good point, that so many of the clinical studies and trials for medications are done on groups of almost exclusively males. This process obviously neglects the biological differences between the sexes, and it has had real world consequences in drug reactions and side effects.
To start, we must come from a place of recognition that there are physiological differences between the sexes. Without this basic groundwork, we can’t have a productive conversation about why there are different outcomes between the two. With this in mind, we can then explore how biology has made the sexes respond differently to the same treatments or medications. There are already well documented differences in disease presentation between the sexes, a heart attack presenting as more abdominal pain instead of the “classis” crushing chest pain that is more common in men. These differences in presentation are only a part of why it is different to study the differences between the sexes.
Women are experiencing the adverse outcomes of medications more than men, because they are often not a part of the clinical trials that get the drugs to market. So, when a drug hits the market, it has often only been tested males, and there is not enough data showing what the adverse effects will be in women. We need to recognize there are differences, and then take steps to make medicine more personalized, and it seems like a good first step would be studying males and females.
I think I'm the only one who likes the way she talks
Adverse side effects from pharmaceuticals in women due to a lack of the clinical testing process represents a significant dilemma in the healthcare industry. Historically women have not been well represented in clinical trials due to a wide variety of factors such as hormonal cycle swings, potential reproductive issues and other issues that could complicate the researchers’ outcomes. With these practices, this has led to a lack of data, safety and efficacy on many drugs for women.
More than just an issue of medical ethics, this is also one of social justice. Women, especially of color have been subject to discrimination and biases of systemic nature in healthcare. This lack of clival testing on women perpetuates this bias and further exacerbates existing disparities in healthcare. Women have the right and deserve access to safe and effective healthcare. Moreover, these special needs should be tailored to their uniqueness that can only be achieved through equitable representation in clinical research.
Pharma companies should prioritize this responsibility of safety and well-being of all individuals with the potential use of their products. This includes ensuring the trials are designed and conducted in a way that represents the diversity that exists within our population. Lastly, Physicians and researchers alike have the responsibility to consider potential risks and benefits for treatment of different population and to moreover covey those risks clearly and transparently to their patients.
great points. but the title is too click baity and actually takes away from the main message. may have misleading connotations to those who read titles without listening to the entire talk.
wow everyone hates this............ that's not right. If there's a message to be given, let it be heard? Why are so many negative comments necessary about generalizing it into a "gender issue". The general public is strange.
This video is actually really interesting, I trust that her science is correct, and I'm actually unaware that they tested most "unisex" drugs only on one gender. But it makes sense where the current status quo stems from, considering the complication with a gender that has hormone fluctuation, it's like trying to do a science experiment on a boat in a storm vs still ground.
This also opens up an interesting can of worms, on one hand she's getting hate for suggesting there needs to be more focus on women in the West, in 2015, which can infuriate a lot of people thanks to the work of gender politics pushers who have taken legitimate issues to infantilise to a point where even when serious issues are raised, people roll their eyes, it's like the boy who cried wolf, the variant cover version featuring the privileged girl who cried patriarchy.
On the other hand, she's getting hate from the current wave feminists, how dare she suggests there are physiological differences between men and women other than reproductive organs, next thing you know she'll be saying women make difference choices due to those differences!
2 minutes in and already a dislike. . . . . . man these Anti-Feminists.
+Vaibhav Gupta Because something's about women it's suddenly an Anti-Feminist act to disagree?
This video isn't even about feminism, I bet you literally clicked on the video to make that comment in the same way that some people clicked on the video to leave a dislike.
I haven't watched it yet, but I hope it's about the findings that only using male mice in lab tests is harmful to women as they react differently to drugs and not some pseudo-science.
+Vaibhav Gupta
I thought feminists were going to dislike this, as it's about how women are different to men (which they always argue is not true).
+Vaibhav Gupta
All these idiots assuming the dislikes are from anti-feminists. The video isn't even about feminism or mentions it. You do know people can disagree/dislike a speaker for reasons besides feminism right?
Titus Orelius read the title, see the thumbnail, look at the no. of dislikes and then read my comment. instead of calling me an idiot.
i never said this talk was about feminism.
Titus Orelius I drew that conclusion because the video is 15 minutes long, and I got here within 5 minutes of it being posted. It already had multiple dislikes. There is no way they could have see it.
I'm glad to hear in this talk taht men and women have diferences in their bodys. Finally true emerges.....
Women being left behind in medical research is a perfect example of the ethical dilemmas that can come up in medicine. Those researchers that Dr. McGregor referred to who decided to avoid doing research on females of childbearing years because of potential dangers to the fetus were actively keeping their oath to “do no harm.” They believed that it was better to isolate testing to males for the sake of safety. What’s interesting is how this relates to the principle of justice. Everyone deserves to be treated equally, obviously. I bet those early researchers believed that as well, but they decided that a different ethical principle should be the final determining factor on their selection of research subjects.
It seems like what Dr. McGregor is getting at here is the principle of beneficence. Beneficence means that a physician (or researcher, for that matter) has the obligation to do whatever they can for the well-being of their patients, even if that means engaging in something that has the risk to “do [some] harm.” Surgery is an excellent example. You are technically doing some harm to a patient, but the ultimate goal is a higher level of overall health.
This is awesome what Dr. McGregor is doing, and I look forward to utilizing the resources she is putting together. I want to be the best physician I can for all my future patients, not just the males. It’s nice to know that I will have the resources to accomplish that goal.
More women volunteering to participate in dangerous clinical studies? Go right ahead...
On a serious note though, test base diversity is a real issue in many fields and not just medicine. Medical trials are outsourced to third world countries. Psychological studies are conducted largely on college students freely available in vast quantities. There's a lot of room to improve all over the place.
love the talk
How does an assumed intelligent audience give so many dislikes to this?
It's a good talk, just an unfortunate title. ''Gendered'' titles make bad 1st impression. Unfairly disliked by association...
Basically, the people who are disliking it aren't actually paying any attention to the content.
So the title isn't the problem... the raters are.
+Cleodel I disagree. Nobody has time to watch all content, so it's quite useful to judge a book by its title. You don't have to watch all bad movies to know they are bad, most of the time you can tell only by the title. Same with TH-cam videos. In the last 30 talks, 2 others had a gendered title and both were quite bad and preaching to the choir:
An Invitation to Men Who Want a Better World for Women.
This Tennis Icon Paved the Way for Women in Sports.
Why Gender Equality Is Good for Everyone - Men Included. is quite bad too, but the self-mocking makes it a bit less aggravating. Nonetheless, you have to watch 5 sec of that video to know it's preaching to a very precise demographic.
Well people need to accept that there are only male and female and they are different
Some drugs have different or worse side effects for women, why are they removed from the market when they can still be used by men?
Oooo is this actually a Tedx?
The fact she just kept repeating studies most often include only males is not true. Like it doesn't only include males as she says...although I do agree with everything else she said
good informative👍👍💟💝💘💋
So men and women aren't the same?
How many years did it take scientists to figure this out?
Thank you for educating us, this is a.very sensitive topic but I think legally it may lead to severe anxiety and complications in between wife and husband their marital relation religion puja environmentand in turn on whole society..
Because in society everyone and everything is interlinked and one single bloodshed can lead to trauma in blood and body fluids waste management stress health disorders..
Being a mother is to conceive the future worlds destination and to prepare him by secure nutrients to face the world and make his own mark..
If we allow him to weakness right from womb I think there's severe error in the way we are perceiving things doing them and getting the results..
Children also face severe psychological stress and trauma after knowing this and may face lot of discrimination in their family..
So I think we can or should raise a voice against and warning by a statutory organization be given against misuse or overuse..
It is not to hurt to anyone s religious sentiments but to relieve few innocent people from unnecessary trauma due to existing laws that are working against their own self..
So I think we all can collectively stand against this and fight for true justice being liberation from evil and pollution..
This warranted a fifteen minute TED talk? When the title captured 80% of the message...
The what else are we missing...blood type specificity!
As far as I'm aware blood types only really matters when transfusion is needed - haplotypes however have much more to say and research is being done!
I’m a male and can’t handle pharma meds
' Bikini Medicine ' , that's true :3
one of the best talks , thanks for sharing .
It's because of the chronic neglect of the special needs of women in medicine, that in developed countries women only live 5 years longer on average than men.
앨리슨 맥그리거님 ( 여자에게도 최고의 의하서적이 필요하다) 잘 읽었습니다.
읽으며 너무나 공감이 많이 되었습니다. 감사합니다
Started off strong, but the "Gender" problem seemed to be a issue against "women." I would have liked it to be both, and the "racial factor." If you ever see labs they'll tell you to base results in Latino or African Americans, this can be an issue as well. Just a thought.
i love her voice lol, I forgot what she said...
ambien has a much longer half life in females.
and 3 minutes in she mentions this I just found. Predictable I guess cause its such a good example. Seriously though. We need to test drugs on both genders.
It’s true. That’s why the medicine can’t healing for everyone.
確かにそうだな 考えもしたことがなかったなそんなこと(自分女)
Men don't have hormones that fluctuate like ladies, so they're easier to study. Drug companies are also becoming afraid to test on ladies because they could become pregnant and it causes liability issues.
Anyone who disliked this video for thinking it was a feminist rant; they the reson why out society is sick.
1:22
2 4 까지
A recent Government Accountability study revealed that 80 percent of the drugs withdrawn from the market are due to side effects on women.
So let's think about that for a minute.
Why are we discovering side effects on women only after a drug has been released to the market?
Do you know that it takes years for a drug to go from an idea to being tested on cells in a laboratory, to animal studies, to then clinical trials on humans, finally to go through a regulatory approval process, to be available for your doctor to prescribe to you?
1:43
Does HRT for trans people affect how they respond to drugs?
Pretty much anything you are taking which alters the hormonal makeup of your body will change the way you respond to food and drugs, however the degree of change depends on the individual :)
Was it just me or was she trying to put way more dama into that then there needed to be. That could have easily be a drama free 3 min explanation that any rational person would have known.
So, this Talk has nothing to do with feminism, and she explicitly states that this is about both men and women.
Why is she getting so much flack?
Cool
Male cells? Male are homogenous? Aren't scientific for me all this stuff.
before watching, I guess because we don't test on women?
@Eli Nope Hahaha Funny!
And nonbinary pals?
This woman makes the situation sound very grave.
So let me get this straight, are there droves of women dropping dead due to drugs only being tested on men?
+alienzen I don't think she said that, but hey don't let that stop your circlejerking.
DeoMachina
No, she didn't. But then I didn't say she did. I asked a question.
She did however present this as a grave problem. I'm just wondering how grave it can be in the light of the fact that women in general have better health than men.
+alienzen Life expectancy of women is generally longer than men yes, but that doesn't mean that applying male tested drugs on female organisms won't cause complications. It's grave in the sense that medicine up until this point has been woefully inaccurate in this regard. That doesn't mean women are dropping like flies. In fact, McGregor mentions that a large number of drugs are pulled from the market because of observed adverse reactions when women take them.
This talk didn't seem to be so bad. I understand some points. HOWEVER, she has the audacity to go off and start encouraging women's specific centers and studies. Excuse me, the fact that women's only centers and studies exist is troubling to me. At least such things can get funding.
❤️
Just imagine a man trying to give this speech, that women and men are different^^
It wouldn't matter to me whether it's a man or a woman who did this speech - what matters is what's being said, the credentials of the person saying it and the availability of data supporting the argument!
This is not a "gender study class" - this is medicine!
There's a difference between social and economical equality than physical it's fairly obvious that we are different physically so there wouldn't be a problem
@@gorillaguerillaDK go off
Ld50
"for women"
Look at these www M R T Elken.com
what if i told you that everyone is unique, not just in DNA but also in gut flora, in retroviruses, in diet, in environment. what if i told you that even identical twins will have mild differences in medication effect? this men vs women is easy, but it is also a false narrative. the same things could be seen between people who are vegetarians vs. heavy meat diet people. the same thing is true of white people living near the poles vs dark skinned people living near the equator. to focus on gender is to lose sight of the reality, that people are unique, and that drugs do not work the same on all people.
there is a real reason to focus medical trials on extending the health of males. men die much earlier than women, and are responsible for the majority of the production of real wealth. extending the working lives of males increases production, and benefits women as well as men.
ķ
Take that people, I got to 3 minutes before disliking. Who can beat that?
why did u dislike it?
+Tyler Wyat Why did you do that? - I mean, why did you dislike the video? If you haven't even watched it until the end, who knows what else she could have said, that you would approve of.
I would really want to know why you didn't like it? What was the reason for you not liking her talk at this early time? Feel free to answer me. :)
I never said I didn't watch it all, I only told you that I disliked it at 3 minutes because I knew where it was going. She wasted everyone's time and money (being a member for TED talks is not cheap it's a few thousand for the lowest pass) and gave nothing of substance. She's talking about drugs that are NOT modern. Male cells, male animals, etc are not strictly used in the field at all and haven't for quite sometime. If she's going to speak about processes she doesn't understand, especially when biochemists and medicinal chemists are watching this, then she deserves a dislike. Also feminazi.
+Tyler Wyat Ok alright, at least I get now that you did have your reasons, even though I don't appreciate that "oh-look-the-word-woman-is-in-the-title-it-must-be-a-feminist-talk-I'm-just-gonna-dislike-this-video-without-even-watching-it-although-it-could-have-nothing-to-do-with-it"-attitude...
Maybe she should consider making a better argument than dropping the feminazi bomb right off the bat. That's poor speaking strategy and my "assumption" (based on 3 minutes of her talking) was correct.
You just took feminism to a whole new level.
Is she an 'ACTOR', or a Doctor??
Gender is a biological fact not how we present our selves in society. I would assume someone in the medical field would know that... I guess not.
yeah shes def outdated. this has been continuously rectified wherever possible in research.
Why all the downvotes?
I seriously get tied of these women trying to make everything seem like it victimises women.... I'm a professional working in medicine, and with experience in medical research, and I can tell you everything this woman is saying is untrue. Drugs have had to pass testing on BOTH female and male cohorts in most, if not all, western countries since the 90's. Atypical pain is called 'atypical' because it doesn't follow a common sense pathway. For example, women often have jaw pain and nausea with 'heart attacks', while males have crushing chest pain DIRECTLY over their heart. It's atypical because it doesn't make as much intuitive sense.
Women have better mortality and morbidity across the board, for the most part. WAY more funding goes into womens health than mens. Taking attention away from these major, indisputable facts to talk about the fallacy of female victimhood in medicine is utterly sexist against the ACTUAL plight mens health issues face around the world....
Men's health problems don't matter because men are regarded as less valuable and disposable. Even if there's some truth in what she was saying men still don't live as long as women. Society always regards women as victims no matter what the situation.
14:34 "This is not just about improving medical care for women, this is about personalised, individualized healthcare for everyone"
Before anyone on either side of the gender debate thinks this is a charged video and blames men/women for some bullshit, watch it.
It's not supporting a feminist agenda, it's not supporting an anti-feminist agenda.
It's simply pointing out that we don't test our drugs thoroughly enough.
+Fridgeworks "personalised, individualized healthcare" is absurdly unfeasible at this point. We're barely scraping by as it is.
In a society with practically limitless supplies, sure, bring on the healthcare that can cater _exactly_ to the individual. At this point I'm highly dubious as to the feasibility of such a suggestion.
AsifIcarebear3
Perhaps not to the person.
But including female mice in labs is something we should at least attempt to do.
Fridgeworks As I've said many times before, women are simply harder to conduct good science on. She even says it herself. We don't have the resources to double check everything on women, because it's very much harder to do so, since their hormones are consistently fucking with everything.
If feasible, yes, we should include women. As it stands, we're not dealing with evil sexism of any kind. It's simply biology and basic finance - the eternal enemies of feminism (which I realise she's not affiliating herself with explicitly in this video).
AsifIcarebear3
I agree with you, however, it should be at least a small part of the sample size IMO.
Nothing to do with sexism, but it's kind of like creating a cancer drug without human trials.
Fridgeworks But whether it's 50/50 or a small part is irrelevant. It's very difficult to make good science on women - and the amount of drugs that would outright kill, disable, or at least severely hurt women is so small that it doesn't make financial sense to make these tests.
It really is nothing like your analogy. Men and women are, ultimately, by and large, pretty damn similar. Yes, there are key differences, but at this point (and let's hope that changes) it simply doesn't make sense to spend a dickload of time on a group of people who are notoriously hard to get scientific, physiological results out of.
Spending all that time and money on women may actually hurt women too, by the way, because research would be slowed to a crawl, or you might simply not get good, reliable results and drugs.
She makes a very valid point... Why the dislikes?
+KeinenGott Anti-Feminists.
+KeinenGott Some people see "for Women", immediately get triggered and start to have feminism related PTSD, even if it has nothing to do with radical feminism. If anything it's the opposite, because it talks about pharmacological gender differences.
+KeinenGott Her points aren't really that good. We experiment with drugs on men because - as she even points out - men are more stable hormonally. Women are all fucked up all the time, because that's how women are. It's not sexism, which fortunately she didn't outright say, it's simply biology and finance.
+KeinenGott People might disagree with her position and think that we can't afford it.
Which to be honest, is fairly valid.
+KeinenGott I think people probably disliked this because people are tired of non-gendered things being turned into gendered discussions, i.e stop harassment for women, stop domestic abuse for women, don't rape women, etc. etc.. Feminists, mainly, have used the phrase "for women" about issues that both genders face so much, that it becomes an instinctive reaction to recoil. I'm not excusing the automatic reaction, but I think this is an explanation.
I've actually seen old (as in a few decades old) medical textbooks which teach that women's complaints are mainly "hysterical" and that menstrual pains and menopause symptoms are imaginary. There is still some of that underlying attitude in some medical professionals. That's beside the facts these speaker is talking about - that most medical studies were done on men and the assumption that women will have the same result is detrimental.
Yeah that’s a damn lie menstrual pain is real
Those who gave this video a thumbs down did so based on the title and didn't watch the video.
Brothers; you can be anti-feminist, just don't be a knee-jerk anti-feminist.
*+Waltham1892+* Yes, they should have titled it better. TED often has sensationalist titles that don't do the talks justice. I would argue that the majority of _"XYZ negatively affects women"_ talks are highly selective in how their narrative is spun, sometimes to an insulting degree. So I understand the backlash.
+Adrian I'm afraid to admit that I'm one of those who has been posting negative comments on TED videos which I've felt were more a discussion of feminist issues (or the monologue of one specific woman) rather than something closer to the true mission of TED.
That being said, I don't think they miss-titled this video. I think people are over-reacting to it.
Waltham1892
Yeah ok, this particular video is actually aptly titled (in isolation); the problem is what's associated with this _"for women"_ pattern.
Quite a few talks, irrespective of their topic, have titles that read like click-bait or advertisement and I have doubts the speakers themselves came up with them.
+Waltham1892 Or just don't be ideological. I oppose feminism because it makes absurd claims that are not reflected in reality and then browbeats people into accepting those claims as fact. It's authoritarian and I don't like it. But the anti-feminist camp has it's own menagerie of problems too. If you aren't even willing to at least listen to a position that might possibly perhaps be opposite to your own (even when it turns out it's not,) you have some course corrections to make.
Strix I find most anti-feminists are sexually frustrated teenage boys and men got the short end in their divorces.
Not being a sexually frustrated teenage boy, and having gotten over my divorce, I find their arguments unpersuasive.
My position is now that of a mature male. Specifically, I don't whine and I don't cloak my anger and frustration in over long monologues.
I think what this doctor is saying is is important. Not least the point she makes about drugs remaining in the female system for longer than in males due to slower metabolism, and especially If you consider the build up of drugs within a system (like anti depressants and side effects, for example). Simply to draw an analogy, One Size Fits All clothing is simply preposterous, and we all know it. Shared to Google+.
I think she got that point passed no need for ur mansplaining
I predict lots of down votes
As always
+Overonator Are you a wizard?
*****
Why yes, a master wizard. How do you do?
Overonator
You can predict THE FUTURE
*****
Maybe we're just tired of having gender politics jammed down our throats?
That and being ignored while women's slightest complaints, real or imagined get instant attention, sympathy, and action.
She really pointed out aspects I haven’t thought about before. I always wondered why some diseases are more prevalent in men than women or vice versa, so why medications are created or treated differently
As a woman in medical school this talk really resonated with me, especially because I too am interested in emergency medicine. Before listening, I had no idea that there is little representation of women in drug studies and research done on physiological differences between men and women. I had never thought about the fact that men do not have the same processes going on compared to women such as hormone fluctuations, menstrual cycles, etc and how that could alter drug metabolism as Dr. McGregor mentioned. We are taught in school the innerworkings of the human body and very rarely do we discuss the differences between men and women except for reproductive organs which Dr. McGregor pointed out as well. This lack of representation calls into question many of the ethical tenets that doctors are taught to abide by when practicing. First, is the most obvious to me which is beneficence or making sure that your patient receives the best care possible based on the studies that have been done that we base our medical decisions on. Now knowing that this evidence we are using is extremely skewed towards the male population makes it incomplete and biased resulting in women receiving suboptimal care. Another ethical principle that is called into question is justice, which requires healthcare providers to provide care fairly and equitably to all patients. Since women make up half of the population, treating them with medications that have not been adequately tested for them and the risks that come along with them is violating their justice.
Physicians are obligated to get informed consent from all of their patients for treatment and that includes providing them all of the information about their treatments including risks and side effects. If there is not accurate information about these risks for women then the consent physicians are getting cannot be labeled as “adequately informed” and therefore is a violation of the patient’s autonomy in their medical decision making. The best way to address these medical shortcomings would be to increase the presence of women in medication testing studies as well as more research to be done about the physiological differences between men and women in all aspects, not just the reproductive systems. Additionally, drug companies and regulatory bodies need to be more transparent with their research and any side effects they found in women versus men. These are just a couple changes that could be made to bring more equality to the medical treatment of women and allow physicians to make better informed decisions about the best treatment for their patients in general. Overall, I learned a lot from this talk and it gave me some things to consider as I pursue a future in the medical field and how to best treat and care for my patients.
Why are there so many dislikes? I mean this is one of the most mind-opening TED talk I've ever seen, and something I've never even thought of, like at all!