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.
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 UA-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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
+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.
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 UA-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.
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.
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!
***** 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.
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!!!
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
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+.
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.
This also happened on Women and Alcohol. They still have more alcohol in the body than men even if both waited the same amount. Men and women are "build" differently and this is one fact we tends to overlooked.
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.
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.
"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.
I like the video for its subject matter, it's compelling and offers great information we otherwise wouldn't have known or considered. There is no need for a gender debate. This video is about getting PEOPLE the care they need and, last I checked, women were included in that category.
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.
The idea that women should advocate for themselves in healthcare is based in ethical principles that emphasize fairness, respect, and autonomy. The ethical ramifications of women needing to advocate for themselves in healthcare have highlighted the need for healthcare providers to pay more attention to women's health concerns and to address gender bias within the medical field. One of the key ethical principles in play in this issue is the principle of justice. This principle says that healthcare resources be distributed fairly and equitably, so that every patient can have equal access to high-quality medical care. When women are not listened to or taken seriously by healthcare providers, they may struggle to access appropriate medical care, which can have serious consequences for their health and wellbeing. This can create unfair and inequitable access to healthcare resources, which is a violation of the principle of justice. This can be exacerbated in places where women cannot access basic healthcare, which is true in places all over the world, even in the Western world. Another important ethical principle at stake in this issue is respect for patient autonomy. Autonomy refers to a patient's right to make decisions about their own healthcare, based on their own values, preferences, and beliefs. When healthcare providers dismiss women's symptoms or fail to provide appropriate care, they may be compromising their patients' autonomy. This can make it difficult for women to make informed decisions about their own health, and can prevent their ability to exercise their autonomy. Finally, the principle of beneficence is also relevant to this issue. Beneficence requires healthcare providers to act in the best interests of their patients, and to promote their patients health and wellbeing. When healthcare providers fail to listen to women's concerns or dismiss their symptoms, they may be failing in their duty to promote their patients' health and wellbeing. This can lead to negative health outcomes for women, which is a violation of the principle of beneficence. The ethics of women needing to advocate for themselves in healthcare highlight the need for healthcare providers to be more attentive to women's health concerns, and to address gender bias within the medical profession. This is going to require a commitment to fairness, respect, and autonomy, as well as a willingness to challenge stereotypes about women's health. It also emphasizes the importance of empowering women to take an active role in their own healthcare, and of promoting informed consent and patient autonomy. Ultimately, creating a healthcare system that provides high-quality, equitable care to all patients, regardless of their gender, is essential for promoting ethical and just healthcare practices.
Dr. McGregor should be commended for bringing up an issue that has been around for decades. However, we’re only now seeing its negative impacts on women. I agree that many of the symptoms of diseases we hear about, like her example of a heart attack, are typically seen in men. However, I would like to propose that we are all atypical. I’m a second-year medical student; we learn that patients rarely present as a typical case for anything, and no two patients with the same disease will present the same way. As Dr. McGregor mentioned at the end of her talk, we are all different. We all have different hormone levels, ideas, and life experiences that shape who we are, so this begs the question of whether we should focus on individualized medicine. Individualized medicine sounds great and is the perfect solution; however, we live in a capitalist society. Who determines which patients receive treatment and those which do not? Not everyone can afford individualized medicine, which infringes on the ethical dilemma of nonmaleficence for physicians not to cause pain or suffering. Here’s a scenario to consider, a doctor prescribes a medication to a female patient as they would to a male patient to treat her headaches, knowing full well it will only partially relieve her pain. However, if she were to get genetic testing and the doctor could give her individualized treatment, the patient would be better off. However, the patient can’t afford that kind of treatment, would the physician be in the wrong for prescribing a medication that leaves the patient in pain? In my opinion, no, they are not in the wrong even though it seems they are violating the nonmaleficence ethical principle. It is not their intent to leave the patient suffering as the doctor is doing everything they can within the means of the patient.
I agree with you regarding introducing individualized medicine to better care for everyone's individual needs but besides the financial barrier that you already mentioned, there is also another obstacle that comes around to cause issues for that matter. "In healthcare ethics, autonomy is a practice that acknowledges patients have the right to exercise control over what happens to them regarding treatment. Patient autonomy allows healthcare professionals to educate the patient but does not enable them to make decisions for the patient. Even when the professional believes a specific treatment is in the patient’s best interest, autonomy allows the patient to have the final say in the decision-making process. Autonomy also requires informed consent, which involves communication between a patient and their healthcare provider that leads to an agreement or authorization for care, treatment, or services. It ensures that practitioners provide patients with information about their medical concerns and all possible testing and treatment alternatives. If the patient is soundly capable of making their own choices, medical treatment cannot begin until the patient provides informed permission" I understand that most physicians are working to promote wellness for a greater number of people but if the patient disagrees to give consent for any or part of the treatment, that can also hinder a physician's try to promote justice.
I agree with you that patient autonomy should be one of the highest-held ethical principles, which is the determining factor in patient treatment plans. You mention that physicians are working towards treating a greater number of people. Still, I wonder if the drive to treat as many people as possible hinder the quality of care given to patients, quantity over quality. Yes, the goal is to help as many people as possible that’s the main reason many go into healthcare, but if patients are returning again and again for the same symptoms, are they truly getting the help they need? This also leads to an increasing rate of physician burnout. Suppose physicians and other healthcare professionals were to sit down and listen to patients’ concerns. In that case, I think that alone would benefit all parties involved. It fosters better patient-doctor relationships and allows patients to trust their providers.”
I am sorry I believe there is a misunderstanding in the way I phrased my words. I did not mean to say that physicians are trying to treat a greater number of people. What I was trying to say was that physicians are trained to "Do no harm". This is what most physicians have in their minds when they interact with their patients. They want to make sure that they promote wellness and justice. Every decision that they make benefits a greater majority of people. I am not trying to say that physicians try and see 10 patients in one hour instead of 5. I am saying that whatever they do helps the most number of people. I completely agree with your quality over quantity comment and that's exactly what I am trying to say py "promoting wellness for a greater number of people". The people that the physician is already seeing. I can not speak for all physicians but I sure hope that the intent of the physician is to make sure that they can make an impact on the maximum number of patients out of those 5. Definitely, increasing the number of patients would not allow the physician to build that trusting relationship with their patients hindering the quality of care that they intend to provide.
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.
Most medical research is on white people, this was not racism, but more than European countries fund more medical research than Asian or African or even American. It was also common for males because males did not get pregnant thereby removing the fear of high does being circulated in blood as a threat. However, as more of the world grows up and we have more data, it indeed is wise to test on both. As for rats since females are used for breeding, and experience hormonal cycles they use males. Since studies are on male rats, it is safer for a scientist to make it on to male humans and if previous studies of say drug named AB is on males, for a new drug AC it is for scientists safer to test in males as well. Academia rewards those with positive results and due to higher tolerance of pain, previous studies on men and less complaints in general, it is economically and more rewarding in career to work on males. Is it fair? Not really, but one must also see what lead to this bias and how forces of economics force scientists to take a short cut.
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.
@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. 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.
12:00 Well she should be proud that that's definitely happening, I have to give a report on this for college. i'm a nursing student but it's for a common plan class (medicine, obstetrics and kinesiology also have to take it)
Downvotes, because god forbid we ever EVER admit that male and female are scientifically different on a cellular level. That's just politically incorrect.
Why the downvotes? We know that chemical balances in men and women can be significantly different. I learned about this in AP Biology. The example given in class was sleeping pills. Okay, I'm good, the example she gave was the same I learned about.
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.
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
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
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.
We don't need more drugs that give us more side effects than what its proposed to be treating. How about we all just try to focus on prevention rather than treating a symptom. Most people are on a poor diet from lacking any alkaline foods, exercise to promote oxygen flow within the body, a overload of acidic foods and poisonous water being pumped from just about every city in America. we shouldnt personalize medicine down to every detail nor gender unless disease or injury (ect.) is gender based as long as we make it healthy for the body to begin with.
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...
+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.
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.
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!
This was a fascinating talk and perspective on medical research methods. The importance of recognizing physiological differences between men and women in medical research cannot be overstated. For too long, women have been underrepresented in clinical trials, leading to a generalized lack of understanding of how certain drugs and treatments may affect women differently than men, and leading to improper dosing and avoidable side effects. From an ethical perspective, it is essential that medical research is conducted in a way that promotes fairness and justice for all individuals. This includes recognizing and addressing gender differences in research. By acknowledging and studying the physiological differences between men and women, we can develop more effective treatments for both sexes, and ultimately promote the well-being of all individuals. Moreover, it is crucial that medical research is conducted in a way that upholds the principle of beneficence, which refers to the duty to promote the well-being of others. This means ensuring that research is conducted in a way that minimizes harm and maximizes benefit for all individuals, regardless of gender. By taking into account gender differences in medical research, we can minimize the risk of harm to women and ensure that treatments are tailored to meet their unique needs. Furthermore, recognizing and addressing gender differences in medical research is consistent with the principle of non-maleficence, which refers to the duty to do no harm. By conducting research that takes into account the differences between men and women, we can minimize the risk of harm to both sexes and ensure that treatments are safe and effective for everyone. It is essential that medical research recognizes and addresses the physiological differences between men and women. Doing so supports the principles of fairness, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence. By taking into account gender differences in research, we can develop more effective treatments for both sexes and promote the well-being of all individuals.
This discussion provided a new insight that I had never thought about in science: that data provided for drug trials is predominantly male in nature. As UA-camr Ferns mentioned, this is a direct violation of justice from an ethical perspective. To elaborate, there is no fairness if other genders are not equally represented in the data accumulated for these drugs to be FDA-approved. If trials fail to consider the different sexes and genders in their sample size and parameters, this disregards the unique features of male and female physiology, another valid point that Ferns brings up. As these drugs which were originally deemed safe for the public continue to demonstrate adverse side effects, this raises a question in my mind: is the production of these pharmaceuticals considered maleficence? Considering the point raised by Ferns about how there are clear differences between genders in bodily processes, I would argue that continuing to ignore gender in medical research would be. However, to play devil’s advocate: this is not something that I would have initially considered in developing a research study of medicine, as I would fall into the ‘bikini medicine’ trap as mentioned in the discussion. It is clear that different disease processes have different presentations across different sexes, as mentioned with the presentation of myocardial infection in men and women. Ultimately, I agree with UA-camr Ferns’ perspective: the bottom line is that there needs to be consideration of all genders in medical research if medicine is to truly provide beneficent care to all individuals.
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.
“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. “
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 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 UA-cam tend to be rather sexist. But then I realised how badly the talk was delivered.
In this talk, Alyson McGregor discusses how the healthcare system often overlooks the differences between men and women in terms of diagnosis, treatment, and medication. The ethical principle that is being discussed is justice, as it is unfair for women to receive suboptimal care simply because they are not the "typical" patient that medical research has been done on. It is alarming to hear that women are more likely to suffer from adverse drug reactions due to the lack of female representation in clinical trials. This not only jeopardizes the health of women but also undermines the accuracy and effectiveness of medical treatments. McGregor highlights the need for more gender-inclusive research and greater awareness of the differences between men and women in medical practice. It is crucial for healthcare professionals to recognize the importance of tailored care that takes into account the unique needs and characteristics of each patient, regardless of their gender.
It would be pretty obvious if "every drugs" are tested by male testers only. Any drug reaching the hospital for final tests would be so far out of the way. Also, it would be insanely cost INEFFECTIVE if most drug companies tests their drugs with a "bias" test, they would spend millions investing in a drug, just to find out it has ridiculous side effects on females. Even basic salesman understand this kind of logic. If every drugs were tested by male testers only, I am pretty sure even the most powerful pharmaceutical companies won't be able to cover them all up. She does look very convincing though, and very attractive as well.
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.
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.
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.
One thing that a lot of people don't know is that women actually have more inflammatory in our systems than men do. That is a huge reason why clinical trials need to include both men and women of an equal number.
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.
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.
***** 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.
+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 UA-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
the genders aren't so different that a separate area of study is needed. regardless women lead longer and healthier lives so its men that are not catered to. they die earlier of things women don't.
I wouldn't be so sure about this. Female physiology is significantly different enough to cause different drug reactions. I mean just think of alcohol. The water ratio of males and females varys dramatically. Something as simple as alcohol is more potent due to females different body water ratios as as a large reason. They do live longer but does that mean we shouldn't help them. After all. They make up half the population.
Women are always regarded as victims. Like you said, women live longer and have fewer health problems than men. She failed to mention that men don't respond as well to certain treatments as women do.
I don't actually understand why we don't have gendered medicine. There's no shame in it. Let's not pretend men and women are the same apart from genitals.
Women can get replacement hormones legally in they "feel" that they need it. For men, however, testosterone is considered a drug... even when men are literally dying because low T.
Women's problems always receive more attention because women's lives are considered more valuable than men's lives. If men are dying in large numbers from anything, who cares? Our society regards men as disposable.
+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.
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.
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.
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 UA-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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 UA-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.
Took us till the 21st century to realize that women are different from men.
Gee imagine that.
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.
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!
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.
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!!!
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
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
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.
This also happened on Women and Alcohol. They still have more alcohol in the body than men even if both waited the same amount. Men and women are "build" differently and this is one fact we tends to overlooked.
"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.
not sure why people disliked this. She isn't acting 3rd wave feminist at all.
Very well put together talk!
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.
"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?
I like the video for its subject matter, it's compelling and offers great information we otherwise wouldn't have known or considered. There is no need for a gender debate. This video is about getting PEOPLE the care they need and, last I checked, women were included in that category.
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.
Maybe most medical specialties should be split in two, for male and female patients.
The idea that women should advocate for themselves in healthcare is based in ethical principles that emphasize fairness, respect, and autonomy. The ethical ramifications of women needing to advocate for themselves in healthcare have highlighted the need for healthcare providers to pay more attention to women's health concerns and to address gender bias within the medical field.
One of the key ethical principles in play in this issue is the principle of justice. This principle says that healthcare resources be distributed fairly and equitably, so that every patient can have equal access to high-quality medical care. When women are not listened to or taken seriously by healthcare providers, they may struggle to access appropriate medical care, which can have serious consequences for their health and wellbeing. This can create unfair and inequitable access to healthcare resources, which is a violation of the principle of justice. This can be exacerbated in places where women cannot access basic healthcare, which is true in places all over the world, even in the Western world.
Another important ethical principle at stake in this issue is respect for patient autonomy. Autonomy refers to a patient's right to make decisions about their own healthcare, based on their own values, preferences, and beliefs. When healthcare providers dismiss women's symptoms or fail to provide appropriate care, they may be compromising their patients' autonomy. This can make it difficult for women to make informed decisions about their own health, and can prevent their ability to exercise their autonomy.
Finally, the principle of beneficence is also relevant to this issue. Beneficence requires healthcare providers to act in the best interests of their patients, and to promote their patients health and wellbeing. When healthcare providers fail to listen to women's concerns or dismiss their symptoms, they may be failing in their duty to promote their patients' health and wellbeing. This can lead to negative health outcomes for women, which is a violation of the principle of beneficence.
The ethics of women needing to advocate for themselves in healthcare highlight the need for healthcare providers to be more attentive to women's health concerns, and to address gender bias within the medical profession. This is going to require a commitment to fairness, respect, and autonomy, as well as a willingness to challenge stereotypes about women's health. It also emphasizes the importance of empowering women to take an active role in their own healthcare, and of promoting informed consent and patient autonomy. Ultimately, creating a healthcare system that provides high-quality, equitable care to all patients, regardless of their gender, is essential for promoting ethical and just healthcare practices.
Dr. McGregor should be commended for bringing up an issue that has been around for decades. However, we’re only now seeing its negative impacts on women. I agree that many of the symptoms of diseases we hear about, like her example of a heart attack, are typically seen in men. However, I would like to propose that we are all atypical. I’m a second-year medical student; we learn that patients rarely present as a typical case for anything, and no two patients with the same disease will present the same way. As Dr. McGregor mentioned at the end of her talk, we are all different. We all have different hormone levels, ideas, and life experiences that shape who we are, so this begs the question of whether we should focus on individualized medicine. Individualized medicine sounds great and is the perfect solution; however, we live in a capitalist society. Who determines which patients receive treatment and those which do not? Not everyone can afford individualized medicine, which infringes on the ethical dilemma of nonmaleficence for physicians not to cause pain or suffering. Here’s a scenario to consider, a doctor prescribes a medication to a female patient as they would to a male patient to treat her headaches, knowing full well it will only partially relieve her pain. However, if she were to get genetic testing and the doctor could give her individualized treatment, the patient would be better off. However, the patient can’t afford that kind of treatment, would the physician be in the wrong for prescribing a medication that leaves the patient in pain? In my opinion, no, they are not in the wrong even though it seems they are violating the nonmaleficence ethical principle. It is not their intent to leave the patient suffering as the doctor is doing everything they can within the means of the patient.
I agree with you regarding introducing individualized medicine to better care for everyone's individual needs but besides the financial barrier that you already mentioned, there is also another obstacle that comes around to cause issues for that matter. "In healthcare ethics, autonomy is a practice that acknowledges patients have the right to exercise control over what happens to them regarding treatment. Patient autonomy allows healthcare professionals to educate the patient but does not enable them to make decisions for the patient. Even when the professional believes a specific treatment is in the patient’s best interest, autonomy allows the patient to have the final say in the decision-making process. Autonomy also requires informed consent, which involves communication between a patient and their healthcare provider that leads to an agreement or authorization for care, treatment, or services. It ensures that practitioners provide patients with information about their medical concerns and all possible testing and treatment alternatives. If the patient is soundly capable of making their own choices, medical treatment cannot begin until the patient provides informed permission" I understand that most physicians are working to promote wellness for a greater number of people but if the patient disagrees to give consent for any or part of the treatment, that can also hinder a physician's try to promote justice.
I agree with you that patient autonomy should be one of the highest-held ethical principles, which is the determining factor in patient treatment plans. You mention that physicians are working towards treating a greater number of people. Still, I wonder if the drive to treat as many people as possible hinder the quality of care given to patients, quantity over quality. Yes, the goal is to help as many people as possible that’s the main reason many go into healthcare, but if patients are returning again and again for the same symptoms, are they truly getting the help they need? This also leads to an increasing rate of physician burnout. Suppose physicians and other healthcare professionals were to sit down and listen to patients’ concerns. In that case, I think that alone would benefit all parties involved. It fosters better patient-doctor relationships and allows patients to trust their providers.”
I am sorry I believe there is a misunderstanding in the way I phrased my words. I did not mean to say that physicians are trying to treat a greater number of people. What I was trying to say was that physicians are trained to "Do no harm". This is what most physicians have in their minds when they interact with their patients. They want to make sure that they promote wellness and justice. Every decision that they make benefits a greater majority of people. I am not trying to say that physicians try and see 10 patients in one hour instead of 5. I am saying that whatever they do helps the most number of people. I completely agree with your quality over quantity comment and that's exactly what I am trying to say py "promoting wellness for a greater number of people". The people that the physician is already seeing. I can not speak for all physicians but I sure hope that the intent of the physician is to make sure that they can make an impact on the maximum number of patients out of those 5. Definitely, increasing the number of patients would not allow the physician to build that trusting relationship with their patients hindering the quality of care that they intend to provide.
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.
Good presentation. I wonder if such a distinction is also useful to make between people of different racial backgrounds.
Anyone else immediately think of Flibanserin/Addyi? What a clusterfuck that thing is.
It's even harder right now that we are being forced the view that the differences between man and women are merely social constructs.
Most medical research is on white people, this was not racism, but more than European countries fund more medical research than Asian or African or even American. It was also common for males because males did not get pregnant thereby removing the fear of high does being circulated in blood as a threat. However, as more of the world grows up and we have more data, it indeed is wise to test on both. As for rats since females are used for breeding, and experience hormonal cycles they use males. Since studies are on male rats, it is safer for a scientist to make it on to male humans and if previous studies of say drug named AB is on males, for a new drug AC it is for scientists safer to test in males as well. Academia rewards those with positive results and due to higher tolerance of pain, previous studies on men and less complaints in general, it is economically and more rewarding in career to work on males. Is it fair? Not really, but one must also see what lead to this bias and how forces of economics force scientists to take a short cut.
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?
@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.
Why are there so many dislikes? This video is talking about common sense.
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.
She makes me uncomfortable with her long stressing pauses... but of course, she's right and I up-voted it.
12:00 Well she should be proud that that's definitely happening, I have to give a report on this for college. i'm a nursing student but it's for a common plan class (medicine, obstetrics and kinesiology also have to take it)
Same! I just went on an online internship to edit workfolders for medical students, aiming to improve equality in medical education
Downvotes, because god forbid we ever EVER admit that male and female are scientifically different on a cellular level. That's just politically incorrect.
I am grateful to this doctor. She opened many eyes.
The title could easily mislead you to dislike this. Knowing the history of Ted.
Maybe actually watching the content before rating something is a habit more viewers should pick up..
Why the downvotes? We know that chemical balances in men and women can be significantly different. I learned about this in AP Biology. The example given in class was sleeping pills.
Okay, I'm good, the example she gave was the same I learned about.
This is brilliant. Will probably enable me to seek the right help for my heart issues.
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.
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
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
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.
This is a really good point
Very good! I hope there will be more research in the future.
We don't need more drugs that give us more side effects than what its proposed to be treating. How about we all just try to focus on prevention rather than treating a symptom. Most people are on a poor diet from lacking any alkaline foods, exercise to promote oxygen flow within the body, a overload of acidic foods and poisonous water being pumped from just about every city in America. we shouldnt personalize medicine down to every detail nor gender unless disease or injury (ect.) is gender based as long as we make it healthy for the body to begin with.
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.
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.
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.
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!
This was a fascinating talk and perspective on medical research methods. The importance of recognizing physiological differences between men and women in medical research cannot be overstated. For too long, women have been underrepresented in clinical trials, leading to a generalized lack of understanding of how certain drugs and treatments may affect women differently than men, and leading to improper dosing and avoidable side effects. From an ethical perspective, it is essential that medical research is conducted in a way that promotes fairness and justice for all individuals. This includes recognizing and addressing gender differences in research. By acknowledging and studying the physiological differences between men and women, we can develop more effective treatments for both sexes, and ultimately promote the well-being of all individuals. Moreover, it is crucial that medical research is conducted in a way that upholds the principle of beneficence, which refers to the duty to promote the well-being of others. This means ensuring that research is conducted in a way that minimizes harm and maximizes benefit for all individuals, regardless of gender. By taking into account gender differences in medical research, we can minimize the risk of harm to women and ensure that treatments are tailored to meet their unique needs. Furthermore, recognizing and addressing gender differences in medical research is consistent with the principle of non-maleficence, which refers to the duty to do no harm. By conducting research that takes into account the differences between men and women, we can minimize the risk of harm to both sexes and ensure that treatments are safe and effective for everyone. It is essential that medical research recognizes and addresses the physiological differences between men and women. Doing so supports the principles of fairness, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence. By taking into account gender differences in research, we can develop more effective treatments for both sexes and promote the well-being of all individuals.
This discussion provided a new insight that I had never thought about in science: that data provided for drug trials is predominantly male in nature. As UA-camr Ferns mentioned, this is a direct violation of justice from an ethical perspective. To elaborate, there is no fairness if other genders are not equally represented in the data accumulated for these drugs to be FDA-approved. If trials fail to consider the different sexes and genders in their sample size and parameters, this disregards the unique features of male and female physiology, another valid point that Ferns brings up. As these drugs which were originally deemed safe for the public continue to demonstrate adverse side effects, this raises a question in my mind: is the production of these pharmaceuticals considered maleficence? Considering the point raised by Ferns about how there are clear differences between genders in bodily processes, I would argue that continuing to ignore gender in medical research would be. However, to play devil’s advocate: this is not something that I would have initially considered in developing a research study of medicine, as I would fall into the ‘bikini medicine’ trap as mentioned in the discussion. It is clear that different disease processes have different presentations across different sexes, as mentioned with the presentation of myocardial infection in men and women. Ultimately, I agree with UA-camr Ferns’ perspective: the bottom line is that there needs to be consideration of all genders in medical research if medicine is to truly provide beneficent care to all individuals.
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.
Differences, you say? People believed some weird things six years ago… I’d like to see someone try to say this today.
“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. “
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.
Individualised healthcare is the future!
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 UA-cam tend to be rather sexist. But then I realised how badly the talk was delivered.
In this talk, Alyson McGregor discusses how the healthcare system often overlooks the differences between men and women in terms of diagnosis, treatment, and medication. The ethical principle that is being discussed is justice, as it is unfair for women to receive suboptimal care simply because they are not the "typical" patient that medical research has been done on.
It is alarming to hear that women are more likely to suffer from adverse drug reactions due to the lack of female representation in clinical trials. This not only jeopardizes the health of women but also undermines the accuracy and effectiveness of medical treatments. McGregor highlights the need for more gender-inclusive research and greater awareness of the differences between men and women in medical practice. It is crucial for healthcare professionals to recognize the importance of tailored care that takes into account the unique needs and characteristics of each patient, regardless of their gender.
I think I'm the only one who likes the way she talks
It would be pretty obvious if "every drugs" are tested by male testers only. Any drug reaching the hospital for final tests would be so far out of the way. Also, it would be insanely cost INEFFECTIVE if most drug companies tests their drugs with a "bias" test, they would spend millions investing in a drug, just to find out it has ridiculous side effects on females. Even basic salesman understand this kind of logic.
If every drugs were tested by male testers only, I am pretty sure even the most powerful pharmaceutical companies won't be able to cover them all up.
She does look very convincing though, and very attractive as well.
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.
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.
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.
sigh, the men in the comments are really scared by women...
I'm very sorry for you guys.
Me: "Doctor, will these percocets I'm being precribed be specific to my gender?"
Doc: *blank stare*
"Get the f*** out my office"
I'm glad to hear in this talk taht men and women have diferences in their bodys. Finally true emerges.....
wow such an eye opener talk
One thing that a lot of people don't know is that women actually have more inflammatory in our systems than men do. That is a huge reason why clinical trials need to include both men and women of an equal number.
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.
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.
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 brings up a lot of good points but her attitude makes it feel like my parent is yelling at me. Not a good way to communicate ideas.
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 UA-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
Sooo put these drugs back on the market for male use...
😂😂and then which woman can still alive?
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
All these years and sadly nothing been done
love the talk
This warranted a fifteen minute TED talk? When the title captured 80% of the message...
the genders aren't so different that a separate area of study is needed. regardless women lead longer and healthier lives so its men that are not catered to. they die earlier of things women don't.
+Aaron565pwns there really are different forms of "fair and equal"
I wouldn't be so sure about this. Female physiology is significantly different enough to cause different drug reactions. I mean just think of alcohol. The water ratio of males and females varys dramatically. Something as simple as alcohol is more potent due to females different body water ratios as as a large reason. They do live longer but does that mean we shouldn't help them. After all. They make up half the population.
Women are always regarded as victims. Like you said, women live longer and have fewer health problems than men. She failed to mention that men don't respond as well to certain treatments as women do.
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?
Thank you, thank you.
I don't actually understand why we don't have gendered medicine. There's no shame in it. Let's not pretend men and women are the same apart from genitals.
Women can get replacement hormones legally in they "feel" that they need it.
For men, however, testosterone is considered a drug... even when men are literally dying because low T.
Women's problems always receive more attention because women's lives are considered more valuable than men's lives. If men are dying in large numbers from anything, who cares? Our society regards men as disposable.
So men and women aren't the same?
How many years did it take scientists to figure this out?
good informative👍👍💟💝💘💋
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.
' Bikini Medicine ' , that's true :3
one of the best talks , thanks for sharing .
love this video
if youre thinking about gender then why not weight, size etc its pointless making an argument like this, its just feminism
One reason is more men volunteer or get paid to take part in trials of new medications.
But beforw they test on humans they only test male animal cells so obviously those animals can't choose therefore they purposefully only test men
Oooo is this actually a Tedx?
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.