RSN Fundraising Banner
Women Suffer Needless Pain Because Almost Everything Is Designed for Men
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50599"><span class="small">Sigal Samuel, Vox</span></a>   
Wednesday, 17 April 2019 13:10

Samuel writes: "In medical lore, the term 'Yentl syndrome' has come to describe what happens when women present to their doctors with symptoms that differ from men's - they often get misdiagnosed, mistreated, or told the pain is all in their heads. This phenomenon can have lethal consequences."

Caroline Criado-Perez at Hay Festival in 2015. (photo: Matthew Horwood/Getty)
Caroline Criado-Perez at Hay Festival in 2015. (photo: Matthew Horwood/Getty)

Women Suffer Needless Pain Because Almost Everything Is Designed for Men

By Sigal Samuel, Vox

17 April 19

Why women are 50 percent more likely to be misdiagnosed after a heart attack and 17 percent more likely to die in a car crash.

n the 1983 movie Yentl, the title character, played by Barbra Streisand, pretends to be a man to get the education she wants. She has to change the way she dresses, the timbre of her voice, and much more to get any respect.

In medical lore, the term “Yentl syndrome” has come to describe what happens when women present to their doctors with symptoms that differ from men’s — they often get misdiagnosed, mistreated, or told the pain is all in their heads. This phenomenon can have lethal consequences.

Many, many women have had this experience when they go to the doctor. I had it myself, years ago. As a spate of articles about the phenomenon has come out in the past couple of years, more people have begun talking about a “gender pain gap.”

In a new book, Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men, the British journalist and feminist activist Caroline Criado Perez argues that this is part of a larger problem: the “gender data gap.” Basically, the data our society collects is typically about men’s experience, not women’s. That data gets used to allocate research funding and make decisions about design. Because most things and spaces — from pain medications to cars, and from air-conditioned offices to city streets — have been designed by men with men as the default user, they often don’t work well for women.

Even when researchers do gather data from women as well as men in their studies, they often fail to sex-disaggregate it — to separate out the male and female data they’ve collected and analyze it for differences. That’s crucial, because a new pain medication that’s ineffective for men may work great for women, but you’d never know it if you mixed all their data together.

All this gives rise to a powerful possibility: What if we can reduce suffering for half the population, simply by ceasing to design everything as if it’ll only be used by men?

Criado Perez’s book discusses how biased design shows up pretty much everywhere, but the issues she identifies in the realm of health are the most striking because they’re the most dangerous.

I spoke to Criado Perez about why the medical system treats women’s pain differently, whether we need to design drugs specifically for women, and how she dealt with the gaslighting she experienced while working on the book. A transcript of our conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity, follows.

Sigal Samuel: You write that the medical system is “from root to tip, systematically discriminating against women, leaving them chronically misunderstood, mistreated and misdiagnosed.” Can you start by explaining how the system got this way?

Caroline Criado Perez: It’s always been this way. And it comes from the fact that the male body has always been taken as the standard human being. The female body is seen as the atypical body. You see that going all the way back to Aristotle — he refers to the female body as a mutilated male body — and you see it in textbooks today, where the male anatomy is presented as the anatomy.

I don’t think there’s some giant conspiracy and medical researchers all hate women and want us to die. It’s just that this way of thinking is so pervasive that we don’t even realize we’re doing it.

That’s partly because of the excuses we still get [from medical researchers], which are outrageous — like the excuse that women’s bodies are too hormonal and too complicated to measure. Male bodies can be very variable, too. And women are 50 percent of the global population!

Sigal Samuel: To me, one of the most striking findings in your book is that in the UK, women are 50 percent more likely to be misdiagnosed after a heart attack, according to Leeds University researchers. That stems from the fact that heart failure trials typically use male participants. And when we picture someone having a heart attack, we picture a middle-aged man clutching at his chest or arm, like in a Hollywood movie.

Caroline Criado Perez: Yeah, and it’s actually been heartbreaking because since publishing the book, I’ve had quite a few people get in touch with me about heart attacks, saying, ‘My mother died of a heart attack because she didn’t present with the ‘typical’ male symptoms.”

The fact that we are still misdiagnosing these women is shocking. We call female heart attack symptoms atypical, but they are actually very typical — for women. And we’ve known about the female symptoms [like stomach pain, breathlessness, nausea, and fatigue] for a long time now, because cardiovascular research is the field where the most work has been done on sex differences. [Misdiagnoses continue in part because some doctors practicing today were trained on medical textbooks and case studies that depict heart attack victims as men.]

I have no idea how I’m going to cope when my mum dies. But I know that if she dies because of something like that, I will just be so angry.

Sigal Samuel: A study published in Brain in March offered new evidence that men and women have different biological pathways for chronic pain, which means some pain medicines that work for men may not work for women. Do you think we should be designing drugs that are specifically made for women?

Caroline Criado Perez: I’m not a medical expert, but absolutely it’s something that needs to be looked at. The fact that women may experience pain differently is something I came across a lot in my research. And yet the vast majority of pain studies have been done exclusively on male mice.

Sigal Samuel: Can you give an example of a drug that’s been found to be less effective for women?

Caroline Criado Perez: The most shocking one was a heart medication that was meant to prevent heart attacks but at a certain point in a woman’s menstrual cycle is actually more likely to trigger a heart attack. That has to do with the problem of not testing the drug on women at different stages of their menstrual cycle, because you [the researcher] say, “Oh, that’s too complicated and too expensive.” You’re basically saying, “I would rather let women die than have to do a complicated test.”

What I actually find most interesting is this: Women have more adverse reactions to drugs than men, and while the number one adverse reaction in women is nausea, the second most common is that the drug just doesn’t work. That is partly because [in drug testing] we are — from the cell stage to the animal stage to the human stage — not testing in women. It’s particularly bad in the cell stage as that’s where a lot of drugs get ruled out.

Sigal Samuel: It’s really striking to me that some drugs out there are not just less effective for women, but are actually potentially harmful for us. Since encountering these studies in your research, have you been telling the women in your life, “Hey, you should maybe look at this study and talk to your doctor about it?”

Caroline Criado Perez: Absolutely, yeah. Women have to be aware of this, because the medical profession is not. At least, it’s insufficiently aware of it and not worrying about it enough. It’s really unpleasant actually, because ever since researching this book I wonder, can I trust my doctor to know what the best thing is for me? I don’t know if I can.

Sigal Samuel: You talk a lot in the book about how everything is designed around the body of a “Reference Man.” Tell me about him.

Caroline Criado Perez: [laughs] Ah, my good friend, Reference Man. He is considered the standard human and he is a man. Usually a white man in his 30s, around 70 kg [155 pounds]. He’s the person we’ve used for decades in all sorts of research on the dose of the drugs.

When you get an over-the-counter medication, it doesn’t tell you male and female doses — it says “child” and “adult,” and that adult is a man. It’s Reference Man. To me, that shows the scale of the problem we have here. All these drugs need to be looked at to see whether male and female doses should be different.

In fact, they found that was the case for Ambien. Women were driving to work still under the influence of this sleeping pill and crashing their cars because the dose was too high. In 2013 the FDA had to tell women to cut their dose in half because it turned out they were metabolizing the active ingredient twice as slowly [as men]. The “gender-neutral” dose was anything but.

Sigal Samuel: Wow. And Reference Man also has implications for car crashes, right?

Caroline Criado Perez: Yes. Reference Man is who cars are designed for. For decades, the typical car crash test dummy has been based on the 50th percentile male. That means seatbelts are not designed for the female form, and women have to sit further forward because the pedals are too far away. So women are 17 percent more likely than men to die if they’re in a car crash. And they’re 47 percent more likely to be seriously injured.

Now there are female crash test dummies, but it’s just a scaled-down male dummy. In the EU, out of the five regulatory tests that must be done, the female dummy is only used in one of them, and it’s only used in the passenger seat. That is just completely mad.

A lot of examples are just down to people not having thought of something — like when Apple forgot to include a period tracker in its comprehensive health tracker app (even though it did include “copper intake”!) — that’s a case where they clearly just didn’t remember periods were a thing. But in a case like this, it has been brought to [car designers’] attention, and yet it’s still happening.

Sigal Samuel: There have been some attempts to force researchers to include women in their studies. Have they been effective?

Caroline Criado Perez: In the US, with the National Institutes of Health funding, there’s a regulation saying women must be included in human studies. In 2016, the same came into force for animal studies. But how rigorously is this being enforced? Not very.

In the EU, I’m not aware of any research that’s been done into how successful it’s been, but definitely the regulation is there that if you want funding you have to include women and sex-disaggregate your data.

The issue is that a lot of the research is being done by private companies, for which there is no regulation. And for generic drugs, again, there’s no regulation on including women.

Sigal Samuel: I’m curious about the emotional process you went through as you researched this book. Can you tell me what you felt?

Caroline Criado Perez: It was a building anger and frustration. And not feeling able to quite believe what I was discovering. It’s so explosive and outrageous, and you just feel like, how is it that this isn’t something everyone is talking about? You start to wonder: Am I going mad, am I making this up?

My way of getting through it was to speak to a lot of experts — doctors, anthropologists — because I wanted to be sure this wasn’t some sort of big misunderstanding.

And then after the book was published, some of the reactions from men have been, “You’re making this up, you’re crazy, this is not a real issue.”

Sigal Samuel: It strikes me that there’s a kind of meta-gaslighting here. On one level, women who present to their doctors with certain symptoms sometimes get told, “You’re crazy, it’s all in your head,” because their symptoms don’t conform to male symptoms. Then when you come along and try to study that as a phenomenon, you yourself have to wonder, “Wait, am I crazy for even thinking this is a phenomenon?”

Caroline Criado Perez: You’re really making me think now. I wonder... If I were not a woman and I weren’t so used to being told I’m crazy, would I have doubted and questioned myself so much while reading the research?

Sigal Samuel: I wonder that too. Looking to the future, what do you want people to do to fix this problem? Do we need legal change? A new field of gender-specific medicine? New textbooks?

Caroline Criado Perez: I don’t think I want a new specialization of gender-specific medicine. Because I want that to be the standard. Legislative change needs to happen — governments need to weigh in on this and enact legislation about how research gets done, specifying that it has to be sex-disaggregated. It’s also important to have women in positions of leadership, whether that’s the person doing the research or the person making the funding decisions. Women are more likely to be aware of female-specific needs and that will change the kind of research they think needs to get done.

Sigal Samuel: Overall, do you feel hopeful or hopeless that this problem will change in the near future?

Caroline Criado Perez: Ultimately I think it’s so outrageous and so ridiculous that actually what’s needed is for enough people to become aware of it, and then it will change. The evidence in the book — you can’t read that and think this is okay. It’s very clear: Women are dying. Unless you think it’s okay that women are dying, you must want to change it.

Email This Page your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+13 # laborequalswealth 2019-04-17 16:30
Let me add what happened to my 80 year old sister: Chest pains in November 2017. The ER did tests. Told her it was indigestion and told her to take Prilosec.

By February 2018, she couldn't sleep because of the pain and was in tears (so unlike my sister.) We took her to ER, and after 7 hours a team came in and said, "Uh... you've had a heart attack." The doctor who did the angiogram essentially said "It's a real mess in there." We were VERY luck that she survived. And amazing how much better she feels after YEARS of weakness and pain - all due to undiagnosed heart problems.

When we asked why the heart attack wasn't caught in November, they said "She didn't have the chemical markers for a heart attack in November." An 80 year old woman, 50 lbs overweight, on blood pressure meds, complaining of severe chest pain... and you DON'T do an angiogram???????????

My sister had also been told that more than one of her serious medical issues were caused by "stress", i.e. "it's in your head." They sent her to counselling for a year, which helped ZERO because the problems were MEDICAL!!!!!

Hip hip hooray for this book.

PS: The ONLY thing that helped my sister sleep was marijuana ("honey") oil. When I told the ER doctor that, he looked me in the eye and said, "The greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public was the outlawing of THC." He then turned and walked out of the room!
+5 # DD1946 2019-04-18 10:07
Glad to hear that your sister survived in spite of their ineptitude. This discrepancy is ingrained into the medical system. I'm surprised any of us survive it.
+6 # tedrey 2019-04-18 07:26
All women-- and all men who love women-- should read this immediately.
+3 # GRCS 2019-04-18 12:27
As a woman who has encountered this ad nauseum (pun intended), I have little confidence in present medicine and female pain control. As a teen, my period pains, and they never stopped until I went on to permanent HRT, were likened to second stage labour. I would pass out at school, so my mother kept me at home for the first two days and got me drunk because the only thing available was Midol or codeine, both of which were a waste of effort. Thank God Ibuprofen and Naproxen came out.

Then, when I broke my ankle hiking, I was put on T3’s. Guess what? I can’t take them as they ramp UP the pain, not alleviate it.

I was once in the hospital in the UK for a huge abscess in my chest caused by ?????? (No one knows). I also had double pneumonia and pleurisy. Pain management? Codeine. It took a friend who was a retired surgeon to talk to the medical team to ask what the hell were they doing. Next thing I know, I got morphine.
+3 # revhen 2019-04-18 13:23
My sister also went through a similar situation. Had chest pain, etc., Was given a faulty stress test, was sent home, pain increased, went back to hospital, Was admitted and finally treated for a heart attack. Taken off blood thinners too soon, had stroke following year. Fortunately, doing quite well despite all this.
+5 # CarolYost 2019-04-18 16:33
This is a very important article.

This reminds me of the horrendous problem of unnecessary hysterectomies; 2/3 of all American women are hysterectomized by the age of 70, and nearly always it’s unnecessary. Insurance companies pay doctors at the same rate for a hysterectomy, which may take only 20 minutes, as for alternative surgery which fixes what’s wrong and may take hours and greater skill. Although hysterectomies cause many lifelong problems for women, gynecologists are incentivized by the insurance companies to tell women they don’t need their uteruses, that uteruses are only for having children (a total lie), and that the uteruses must be removed if there are any problems with them. I went through this in the 1990s, when I angered doctors who demanded that I let them remove my uterus for a bad fibroid (benign tumors) problem. I had the fibroids removed only, and there were no problems except my surgeon demanding an extra-high fee.

Hysterectomies alter a woman’s body shape, disarrange her internal organs, limit sexual response, and greatly increase heart disease risk. This is by no means the complete list of problems and possible problems.

Hysterectomies are a big risk factor for heart disease, along with smoking, high cholesterol and so on. Doctors must check medical history for this! Removal of the uterus makes a woman 3 times as likely to develop heart disease; removal of ovaries as well makes her 5 times as likely.

+4 # CarolYost 2019-04-18 16:35
I’d like to add that doctors are far more careful with problems men may have in their gender-specific organs.

More than 22,000,000 American women are now living with the effects of hysterectomy, almost always unnecessarily.
0 # Glen 2019-04-19 07:58
Mistakes HAVE been made with men's health and surgeries, such as performing prostate surgery that removes too much, including nerves that permit erection. There are many incidences of mistakes with both men and women. Women suffer the most mistakes and misdiagnoses, but mistakes are all too common with both men and women.
0 # CarolYost 2019-04-20 00:03
Thank you, Glen, for that information.

I’d also like to know what, if any, health problems men may suffer from if any of their gender-specific organs are removed. This is very important.

When it happens to women, the results are awful, and this is not being acknowledged by the medical profession.