Scan barcode
britneysreads's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
Dusenbery crafted an interesting and informative exploration of women’s healthcare. It was so intriguing and interesting to read! It was a fascinating introduction to a subject I wish to explore more of.
gabbilevy's review against another edition
5.0
After reading this book for my weekly author interview column, I can't stop recommending it. So thought provoking and raises many disturbing points about the state of health research and women's experiences when the enter the health care system.
My interview with author [a:Maya Dusenbery|15376372|Maya Dusenbery|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1515173566p2/15376372.jpg]:
MODERN MEDICAL RESEARCH has historically centered on men's health, by tradition and by statute. Only in the past 25 years – with the lifting of a law that barred most women from participating in clinical trials and another requiring their inclusion – have researchers begun to systematically consider how women's health outcomes differ from men's.
As a result, women's symptoms can be misdiagnosed or dismissed by their doctors. Diseases that disproportionately occur in women receive a fraction of the funding as diseases that affect men. Research on how common ailments such as heart disease – the leading cause of death in both women and men – affect women is decades behind the understanding of the same diseases in men.
After being diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis at the age of 27, Maya Dusenbery, a journalist and the editor of Feministing.com, learned of the challenges women face navigating their own health care. This led her to investigate the roots of the problem in "Doing Harm: The Truth About How Bad Medicine and Lazy Science Leave Women Dismissed, Misdiagnosed, and Sick." U.S. News recently spoke with Dusenbery about women's health and the challenges they face. Excerpts:
Your book makes a compelling argument that women's care is systematically disadvantaged by the years in which women were excluded from clinical research and by ingrained biases. What do you see as the biggest barriers to changing doctors' diagnostic practices to better serve their female patients?
The result of a medical profession that until recently was very male-dominated was that medicine inevitably prioritized conditions that affect men and had this long-standing concept of hysteria and psychogenic illness that has really impacted what we know about conditions that disproportionately affect women. Because there's a tendency to assume those conditions are psychosomatic until proven otherwise, it's the Catch-22 that leads to just not doing the scientific research into the biological underpinnings.
I don't think it was deliberate, but it was a blind spot that probably wouldn't have been there had there been more women in the profession saying, 'Hey, are we sure there aren't differences [between men and women]?' or saying, 'These conditions that are impacting us disproportionally are really serious,' and to put effort into studying them. One of the big takeaways for me in doing the research is that these problems have become so entrenched into the system that they are self-perpetuating. It's not about individual doctors not caring about their female patients or not wanting to be treating them the same, but that doctors are not equipped with as much knowledge as they need to treat women because in some cases it simply doesn't exist – because medical knowledge is skewed toward knowing more about men and their bodies and their diseases.
There's also growing recognition within medicine that implicit bias on a whole range of factors does impact care, and those treatment disparities are not rooted in some conscious prejudice but that they do exist and can be measured.
Read the rest of the interview here.
My interview with author [a:Maya Dusenbery|15376372|Maya Dusenbery|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1515173566p2/15376372.jpg]:
MODERN MEDICAL RESEARCH has historically centered on men's health, by tradition and by statute. Only in the past 25 years – with the lifting of a law that barred most women from participating in clinical trials and another requiring their inclusion – have researchers begun to systematically consider how women's health outcomes differ from men's.
As a result, women's symptoms can be misdiagnosed or dismissed by their doctors. Diseases that disproportionately occur in women receive a fraction of the funding as diseases that affect men. Research on how common ailments such as heart disease – the leading cause of death in both women and men – affect women is decades behind the understanding of the same diseases in men.
After being diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis at the age of 27, Maya Dusenbery, a journalist and the editor of Feministing.com, learned of the challenges women face navigating their own health care. This led her to investigate the roots of the problem in "Doing Harm: The Truth About How Bad Medicine and Lazy Science Leave Women Dismissed, Misdiagnosed, and Sick." U.S. News recently spoke with Dusenbery about women's health and the challenges they face. Excerpts:
Your book makes a compelling argument that women's care is systematically disadvantaged by the years in which women were excluded from clinical research and by ingrained biases. What do you see as the biggest barriers to changing doctors' diagnostic practices to better serve their female patients?
The result of a medical profession that until recently was very male-dominated was that medicine inevitably prioritized conditions that affect men and had this long-standing concept of hysteria and psychogenic illness that has really impacted what we know about conditions that disproportionately affect women. Because there's a tendency to assume those conditions are psychosomatic until proven otherwise, it's the Catch-22 that leads to just not doing the scientific research into the biological underpinnings.
I don't think it was deliberate, but it was a blind spot that probably wouldn't have been there had there been more women in the profession saying, 'Hey, are we sure there aren't differences [between men and women]?' or saying, 'These conditions that are impacting us disproportionally are really serious,' and to put effort into studying them. One of the big takeaways for me in doing the research is that these problems have become so entrenched into the system that they are self-perpetuating. It's not about individual doctors not caring about their female patients or not wanting to be treating them the same, but that doctors are not equipped with as much knowledge as they need to treat women because in some cases it simply doesn't exist – because medical knowledge is skewed toward knowing more about men and their bodies and their diseases.
There's also growing recognition within medicine that implicit bias on a whole range of factors does impact care, and those treatment disparities are not rooted in some conscious prejudice but that they do exist and can be measured.
Read the rest of the interview here.
jeo224's review against another edition
5.0
An important book with lots of good information. This past year I have heard so many stories from women, and a few men, about how they are not listened to and later find out that they had serious issues which were ignored by at least one doctor (usually several). Over and over again, as this book notes, listening to patients is key. Most importantly, medical providers need to think "But what if the patient is right?" Merely asking that and listening might change the results.
lisagray68's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
5.0
An absolutely crucial read about chronic illness in women.
betsygrace's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
This book is a wealth of information! Especially as someone living with endometriosis, I appreciated Dusenberry’s analysis and understanding of what it looks like for people who live with various chronic illnesses and how challenging it can be for them to get help. Great read, wish everyone medical student would read it.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Body shaming, Cancer, Chronic illness, Classism, Fatphobia, Infertility, Medical content, Medical trauma, Mental illness, and Racism