Week 9 Readings

I think that our directed reading about women's health and health policy have really been engaging in terms of all the broader themes of Ethical and Effective Service. Throughout the quarter, the course emphasized having a deep understanding of the issue of women's health by looking at it from different points of view. We discussed the context of women's health, and talked about how factors such as environment, race, culture, and socioeconomic status all play a role in women's health - even though they may not seem like they would. A class I found particularly engaging in terms of exploring the concept of ethical and effective service was when Professor Hanlon-Baker taught us about service in writing. This made it clear to me how communication, reciprocity between the students and the community, and respect ultimately come together to make community service extremely effective.

Week 9 readings

I really appreciated reading this. The Haas Center's emphasis on communication and context are two of the most important typically overlooked aspects or service learning. As seen in history, when groups go to a variety of locations and try to implement the same programs, they typically don't work because the context of the action has not been taken into context. All places are different; culturally, environmentally, socially. These factors need to be taken into consideration. Also, communication is very vital in performing service anywhere. I really feel like this ASB class has equipped me with the skills emphasized in this document, I feel prepared to go on our ASB!

Of the 9 broader themes in the principles for ethical and effective service, I feel like we have hit upon context the most so far. This is pretty evident from the readings and discussions, where we read about a very diverse range of topics and we also talked a bit about changes from the past. I’m guessing a lot of preparation went into the project, and so did consideration for safety. Naturally, we discussed towards the beginning the need for humility when interacting with the people we meet over spring break. I think our readings also provided us with a sense of respect for diversity too, in that a lot of them brought up cases of racial/cultural diversity.

Week 9 Reading

I feel like the readings we have done so far and the discussions made us prepared for the ASB. We now have a idea of the whole issue of woman health and how it relates to factors. This knowledge definitely helps us to serve better. Hearing from different sides of this issue, I feel that now i have a neutral attitude towards this issues instead of being one-sided. The big political, economic, and social context helps me understand the woman health much better. The participation of every one in ASB contributes to the better understanging of this issue. I really look forward to the ASB and i really wanna know what is the difference between public service in US and in China.

I think that our service trip embodies the principles of ethical and effective service as well. The ones that particularly align with what the trip means to me include reciprocity through partnership, commitment, ongoing communication and clear expectations, and context. I feel that one of our major goals is to work with other partners in the community, whom range from the women's clinics to organizations at a local level to policy makers and advocacy groups at a larger level.

Strongly associated with this collaborative relationship is the theme of communication and expectations: setting objectives and realizing each other's preferences/expectations contributes to the effectiveness of our service efforts. Also, by getting a purview of the relevant literature and issues, we are able to understand the context of women's health and health policy, and the role that we can play within it. Lastly, the importance of commitment ties everything together, as it promotes accountability and efficacy.

I agree that this class/ASB trip covers pretty much all of the principles in some way. The ones that I think we've really hit are: partnership, respect for diversity, commitment, and preparation. For partnership, I think this will come during the actual trip when we start working with organizations (women's clinics), but even before the trip we are all supportive of each other. Of course we have also respected diversity through our topics, but also in our attention to both sides of every argument. Indeed this approach and attention to diversity leads to more interesting and engaging discussion. Even though I've had to miss the last couple of classes (sorry guys) I feel like we all have a really strong commitment to this project, class, and issue. Lastly, what we've been doing for the past nine weeks has been all preparation for our up coming trip, beyond logistics I don't know how we could have prepared more!

Principles for Ethical and Effective Service

In reading the guidelines for ethical and effective service I felt that our class has really applied all of the principles which were discussed in some way. A couple which stood out to me, which I think are most relevant to our trip, are respect of diversity and reciprocity through partnership. The respect of diversity reminded me of the talks all of our guest lecturers have given, which at one point or another concentrated on the differences they had encountered in their specializations and the variance we will also encounter on our trip. We will have to be very mindful of a diversity in patients, diversity in clinic practices, and in beliefs regarding women's health disparities. In regards to reciprocity through partnership, I just thought it really defined how we work together in class and how we will work together on our trip, each of us will contribute something unique as well as take away priceless experience and knowledge given to us from our partners.

Week 9

Last night, I transcribed interviews for a book about public service, and so many of these themes were expressed by other Stanford students. The ones that especially stand out are Humility, Respect for Diversity, Communication, and Commitment. It will be important to strive to help people with an open mind, and to make an effort to understand their background and experiences. think we have laid a strong foundation for that in our class, as we have discussed many important issues so that we understand differing viewpoints. This leads to communication, which is strong in our group. We are comfortable around each other and that will help us achieve our goals and serve the community more effectively. Finally, Commitment was an important theme in the interviews. Some of the projects took years to implement. But more importantly, once we enter a community, we create expectations. We need to fulfill those expectations and not try to overreach so that we maintain credibility.

I completely agree- I think Jackie Speer's most powerful point was that our country has much more pressing issues to take care of. Having personally experienced an abortion, she was able to separate the emotions that are commonly projected onto the issue of abortion from several, often unrelated, viewpoints. Her argument about how a corporation such as Haliburton could just as easily be attacked revealed where the issue against Planned Parenthood truly stands- politics.

Abortion

Wow. I am so looking forward to the discussion tonight. These videos especially were very emotional, and certainly caused me to re-evaluate my opinions regarding abortion. I think that the strongest point, however, in the second video was how absolutely this disagreement needs to be overcome and we need to move on. This is an issue that will forever be controversial, but perhaps at this time other issues need to be on the front burners. How do these people who are so opposed to abortion feel about the distribution of birth control? Condoms? It would be interesting to hear a more detailed debate between the two sides, which is what I'm assuming will take place in class tonight. Looking forward to it.

These videos just continue to frustrate me about path of politics since last year.

Regardless of the fact that contraception and abortion have been declared as legal and protected under our Constitution, people continue to try to pass laws to go around it.

It astounds me that the "moral" agenda of the people who are trying to remove funding from Planned Parenthood can still be a viable political option even though it's essentially illegal.

No one is a "supporter" of abortions. Everyone wishes that the need for abortions would be eliminated, but the simple fact is that things happen, and we need to have backup options. Other people shouldn't have the right to determine whether that is right or wrong.

While the ongoing debate about abortion has been raging for decades, I didn't realize how much political interests factored in the matter. However, I also felt that Rep. Speier's speech was justified. She spoke as a woman of experience, not someone just entangled in a political tug-of-war, in arguing that Planned Parenthood has a right to operate, and a right to provide services and offer abortions. I'm not sure if this was brought up, but Planned Parenthood serves a much larger role than just provide abortions. It also serves to test and treat to sexually transmitted diseases, and provides cancer screening, prevention, and contraceptive services as well. It seems that the anti-abortion groups overlook all this in labeling the organization for its abortion services.

I thought it was really ridiculous to try to restrict funding for Planned Parenthood over abortions, especially since abortions are a tiny part of their activities. As has been said many times before, politicians should seriously try to do things that are a little bit more significant and major an issue. How much further can the debate over abortions and pro-choice be taken anyways.

Even in the event that this debate over abortions continue, I think that opposition should be sensitive to what they are actually saying. It is very inconsiderate and in some ways cruel for people to talk about abortions as if women who made those choices made them lightly, and then to continuously focus on the emotionally negative imaged related to it. Some women genuinely did not have a choice, and most probably suffered a lot more than such speeches would suggest.

Videos and Summary Article

I'm really glad we will be addressing this debate in class since it has been such an important topic lately. I was moved by Speir's speech and it reminded me of what we discussed in class last week, of how abortion is not a decision which women take lightly. I thought she presented that point very well and I was also reminded of our talk on whether or not this debate is a waste of time when so much more is happening in our country. It seems like the debate between "prochoice" and "prolife" will never end but I'm not sure how much farther it can be taken. I think the one of the underlying points is that people should be able to use their insurance for what is needed in their specific circumstance and their privacy should be respected.

Reading Week 7

I am firmly against the Pence amendment, and I thought that Rep Jackie Speier really "pwnd" the opposition. The excerpt read from the book was the worst example of "yellow journalism." Speier also makes a good point that abortion is legal here! So like it or not, government funding should support it simply becuase it is the law. I am disappointed that the House has, in fact, voted to restrict funding (I think). The amendment completely misses the big picture: only 3% of clients receive abortions, so the government is restricting funds to the other 97%. That makes a lot of sense. Additionally, becuase Planned Parenthood also offers contraceptives and testing, the amendment could be said to be increasing the number of abortions demanded and reduce the healthy sex practices that we have worked so hard to instill in people. It is frustrating how short-sighted these opponents of Planned Parenthood seem to be.

First of all I don't agree that the bill is of the "highest priority", I agree with congresswoman Speier that this is hardly what is on most people's minds as they search for jobs. The fact is abortion is not bad for women's health and that abortion procedures only account for 3% of Planned Parenthoods services. Planned Parenthood is the primary healthcare provider for many women (as well as men and families) and should not be under attack when the organization alone makes up so little of our budget. From what I can tell the argument for the bill is just political and doesn't really lead us anywhere. Also a recent Daily Show episode addresses this topic really well.

Week 8

I noticed that there would be tax penalty on employers who offer health insurance plans that cover abortion and individuals who buy a health insurance plan of their own that covres abortion. I'm confused here. Will parenthood have both cut of funding and tax penalty? The debate on funding cut involves so many political reasons. I feel that every political organizations wants to maxmize its own benefit on this debate. I mean even though they say they're concerned with women health, they are more concerned about what kind of benefits they can get from the cut of the funding.Abortion has been legal throughout the United States, but different states have placed varying regulations on it, from requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion to restricting late-term abortions. It seems that people who want to cut the funding focus on that abortion was “a multibillion dollar business” and that “abortion hurts women’s health and puts future children born to women who aborted at significant risk.” However, Planned Parenthood fought back by claiming that there were lies about who they are and what they do. Planned Parenthood insisted that they provided reproductive healthcare, family planning, and sex education for millions by giving its 2009 annual report. It mentions that 3% received abortion services. This does not count a huge percentage. It seems that their idea is that Parenthood should still get federal funding by pointing out their importance on reproductice healthcare.

What I found most surprising in this chapter entitled “Sick and Tired” was the prevalence of double standards. Professional women had more flexibility and support, while working-class women were facing the opposite trend of access to resources. Also, I thought it was interesting what the advent of the pill meant. For instance, it led to increased female college graduation, increased female professional school matriculation rates, and increased age at first marriage rates. The lack of maternal care benefits in private plans is a problem that needs to be addressed as it can have huge implications. Evidence supporting the need for maternal benefits includes the fact that maternity leave before delivery can reduce Caesarean section rates fourfold and extended leave after childbirth can increase the successful establishment of breastfeeding.

I though the article was interesting and informative on the different types of contraceptives that are available, and provided important information that I hadn't been very familiar on. What really struck me was the severity of the side effects of some the contraceptives and exactly how they work. It was very interesting to see how many options for contraceptives there are, the increasing amounts of research going on to improve contraceptives. I also thought it was interesting how different contraceptives may be better for different people based off of their race, religion, and their cultural and moral beliefs.

I think this article is a testament to the progress that has been made and provides some inspiration for progress that can still be made. Women's right to birth control and contraceptives has come a long way, and it is encouraging that pharmaceutical companies and researchers have invested their time and effort into developing new methods of contraception that women prefer. Birth control methods, especially emergency contraception, are much safer than they previously were. However, I think that some women, even though they have physical access to contraceptives, don't really want to take the option because of how they think others will view them (particularly in conservative communities).

Week 7

This was by far my most favorite article so far. I had never heard of the type of birth control used through injection. This article in itself proves how far women's rights have progressed in the past century. Not only do we have the opportunities to use birth control, but there are many options of which type of birth control to use. Women have the right to control their bodies and their reproduction, which is so, so important in the liberation of women. I thought it was ironic how the article discussed the benefits of Yaz. Yaz claims to stabilize pre-menstrual emotion highs and lows, however, last year I was on Yaz for six months and sunk into a horrible depression for three months. This has also occurred with one of my other friends who used Yaz, so be careful while using Yaz. I am now on Yasmin and am obviously much happier with the outcomes. While the variety of options of birth control are in some ways a blessing, they also have had major side effects on the shift in social norms of our society, how sex is now seen as a much more casual practice than in years past.

I thought the whole part where it talked about how there are risks associated to taking pills in the wrong way was very interesting. As more of such pills become available and information on what it contains becomes more accessible, it wouldn't be surprising if new pills produced by people who are not licensed for the job start to circulate. They might end up selling it under the table, especially to younger or disadvantaged females who are do not have the knowledge or capacity to make good decisions and get proper ones after consulting a doctor. This could lead to problems, because as the article said, high doses could have estrogen-related risks, like stroke, etc.

Also, it seemed so problematic. Starting the pills might be easy, but ending it seems to have so many associated problems with the hormonal withdrawal.

Like other people have mentioned, I'm not so sure how good it is to limit the number of menstrual cycles to 4 per year. It seems so unnatural and rather questionable in health.

As someone who does not use contraceptives, I am always very curious as to why people decide to use them. Some of my friends consider it to regulate their menstrual cycles, while others seem to use it so that they wont get pregnant with unprotected sex. Generally, though, I think people should bear the pains of menstrual cycles since all women since the beginning of time has done so, so there should be no reason why people today can't do the same? And as for unprotected sex, I seriously don't think that sound like a good idea, even if the relationship is monogamous, since you never know. That said, I'm still rather curious about the idea. So many people here in America take contraceptives.

Advances in Hormonal Contraception

I think the reading this week was very useful and informative. I've always been confused about the different kinds of contraception so I think it offered a good overview. Some of it was still a little confusing, especially when dealing with when the pills are supposed to be taken, for example, or when the ring was to be taken out and put in. It made me wonder if the women using these contraceptives fully understand and follow their plans, I think it would be hard for me to comprehend at least to start out with. The side effects can cause some worry, I wonder how healthy it is to limit your periods to four times a year. I also wonder, specifically with the newer drugs, what the long term effects may be. Also, I was surprised by the emergency contraception bit when it said: "there is no existing evidence that EC disrupts an established pregnancy", I was under the impression that that was exactly what it did..

I think it’s so interesting that Deborah asked about a contraceptive for men, because I have heard that they are coming out with one! I heard about it when I was in Nicaragua, and I remember some of the guys I was talking to being a little bit weary of it, because it’s just coming out. I’m definitely looking forward to new and better contraceptive methods in the future!

In regards to the article, I thought it was very educational about various kinds of contraceptives. And I definitely agree that doctors and sex ed in public schools are not teaching this material enough. Looking back on my high school experience, I never got any sex ed on contraceptives and neither did my doctor discuss it extensively with me. It seems like we still have a ways to go.

I agree with Deborah because when I talked to my gynecologist almost none of these options came up, and they didn't really come up in sex education either. All I knew about contraception was the pill - until there started to be commercials on TV for alternatives (like the nuva ring) a few years ago. So there definitely needs to be more education and more awareness on options. Of course it should go beyond that and there should me more availability of female contraception as well.

Also I was wondering why the article kept saying how nurses needed to keep such and such in mind when talking to patients, but why aren't the actual gynecologists and doctors in the picture of informing patients?

Feb 17 Readings

I found this article really interesting and helpful, especially as a woman who currently uses contraceptives. I actually didn't know how any of the contraceptive options worked, although I did know some of the risks associated with each of them. Which got me thinking: we didn't really have a discussion of what birth control was or how it worked in sexual education. It seems like I missed a pretty big part of the course! I also didn't really discuss my options when I had this discussion with my gynecologist. So the article is doing a good job of recognizing that there is a need for information and providing it.
Another weird question: why dont men have a contraceptive? I know there are condoms, but if a guy could take a pill that made him not produce sperm for three days or something, that would be cool! But I think societal norms wouldn't allow that - men are too obsessed with their virility.

week 6 readings

I thought this article really helped put women's health issues into perspective by giving some more informational background about health care access for women.

I think a few of the trends, including the fact that women are more likely to be dependent, are more of social issues that cause healthcare disparities.

The amount of women on Medicaid is extremely alarming, especially because these women will not have access to the same quality of treatment and will often be denied basic treatment by many doctors and medical centers who do not accept Medicaid.

This was such an informative article! I really appreciated how it briefly explained what’s going on with health reform right now, and I really liked how it looked at how this issue specifically affects women. I am still confused about exactly what’s happening with health reform, and I hope we can talk about it a bit in class.

I think what concerned me the most were the statistics showing how women more likely than men to be dependents and more likely to lose their healthcare if their spouse loses their job. I think the idea of being financially dependent on someone and not having something like healthcare in your control just personally scares me a lot. And I wonder how the new health reform might address this.

I agree, one of the scariest facts was that uninsured women are more likely to postpone care, forgo filling prescriptions and delay measures such as mammograms and pap tests. Insurance is one of the biggest gatekeepers to so many of the other problems we have discussed. After reading this article, I feel like less frequent mammograms that are covered by insurance might be a better strategy than more frequent mammograms. Especially if this means the difference between a woman getting tested a few times and not getting tested at all.

Week 6 Reading

This is very scary that young, colored women are at the highest risk of not having insurance. From what we read last week, it is that exact group who needs the most health care resources because they are at a high risk of obtaining diseases. Additionally, these women are classified as young, this means that they are the ones having children. How can we expect our society to function properly when at risk child-bearing women do not have health care? Something needs to be changed and higher quality resources need to become available in at risk communities.

I found the statistics a bit disconcerting as well, as the consequences of not getting preventative care can snowball into other (even larger) costs down the road. With provisions to "prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and prevent insurers from varying premium rates based on gender or health status", and also to require coverage of preventive services and vaccines recommended by federally sponsored committees without co-payments or other cost-sharing, I think the health care act is really focusing on what needs to be examined first. However, because the problems with health care that need to be tackled seem so diverse and all-encompassing, I'm not sure how effective the bill will be, in terms of the many issues that it addresses (including how specific its goals are and how it will try to achieve them, i.e. at what scale will the provisions go into effect).

The statistics in this reading are staggering, I was so surprised to learn how many women are uninsured, 19.1 million women?! I'm at least happy to hear that changes are starting to take place and measures are being taken to change some of these numbers. It kind of made me think of when we were discussing how when women go to the hospital they tell all their symptoms (sometimes seemingly unnecessarily) but it made me wonder if some women did so because they try not to go to the doctor often, and when they do they better make sure they've covered everything. Men on the other hand seem to have a better sense of security when it comes to coverage and therefore can perhaps be a little less paranoid and get to the main point.

Reading

It seems that to cover all the uninsured women is really a huge task because in the reading, it says that "Medicaid covers 12% of nonelderly women, rising from 10% of women in 2008. Only 2% more percent during the past two years. How can the government ensure in the future four years the health insurance will nearly cover all the uninsured women? The medicare is only for low-income women who are either: pregnant, mothers of children who are 18 years or under, disabled, or over 65 . There are lots of limitations. Also for those women who are dependent on
their spouses, they are actually potential uninsured women because once their spouse loses his job, they do not have any insurance any more. As is said in the reading,between 2009 and 2010, the actual number of women (and men) with employer sponsored coverage actually fell for the first time, a reflection of the high unemployment rate. It is clear to see how those women are vulnerable to the change of the economic environment.
According to the new health law, it seems that it can reach an ideal situation in 2014 since most of the problems are dealt in the new health law. The question is how efficient this law can be? How each state is going to cover all the uninsured women since some of the states do not really have enough money for that? The tax might be even higher. What if there will be higher unemployment rates in the future? As a result, there might be lots of problems.

Feb 10 Reading

I am glad that the Obama administration is determined to reevaluate health care coverage. However, I find that the big picture is being missed. Shouldn't we focus on health care prevention, and then treatment? Statistics state that low income households had the worst health, and also provided the heaviest burden on the medicaid system. However, as we established last week, only 10% of health issues are related to health care. It is far more likely that these households suffer from their socio-economic status or environment, and it seems like we should be addressing those. A new health care system just seems like a quick fix to a much more complicated problem. However, the fact that we recognize that there is a problem is a start.
As to women's health, is there a great difference in coverage between poor women and poor men? I couldn't really deduce that from the article. The issue of dependency is covered, and I am surprised that that number is so large. However, I feel like it is a little misleading. For instance, my parents work at the same institution, and my mother is listed as a dependent. But if my father were fired or lost coverage, she would still be able to get coverage. Maybe she is listed as the dependent because of societal norms (sexist) but that doesn't mean that she is at risk.
I am relieved that insurance companies will be required to charge the same premiums for men and women. I wasn't aware that this was an issue, and I would love to explore this more.

The article really shows how insurance (or lack thereof) and money can make such a difference in achieving health. Reading the fact that uninsured women will often ignore or not take preventative measures to health issues, just to avoid to deal the costs and complications of being uninsured.

Another issue I found interesting was the fact that women make up 3/4 of the Medicaid population, which leads into another issue that women are more likely to be dependents for health care. I think that the fact that women are more likely to being dependents of healthcare reflects the fact that the workforce is still dominated by men, which makes it more difficult for women to attain insurance from work. Overall, the article really revealed the social implications of the disparities of women's access to health insurance.

I agree with kayo in that economics obviously plays a large part in health care insurance. I was pleased to see that the majority (a slim one) of women are covered by their employers and aren't as dependent on their spouses as seen in the past - but of course there are way too many people that are uninsured and the article rightly points out that this has a lot to do with the high unemployment rate. So yes, health coverage will improve as the economy picks up.

On another note, I knew before reading this that private insurance is expensive, but I didn't realize how little it accounts for the coverage of all women. Also I think medicaid is a good thing, but I don't think it should be the go to - it should only be the fall back. Maybe private insurance needs to become more affordable and less exclusive or medicaid should be expanded to include more of the people at and below poverty level. But alas there is probably a huge cost associated with all of this and there are already economic tensions. Either way there needs to be a way to cover all the uninsured people.

On a completely unrelated note I didn't appreciate how the fact-sheet said women covered under Tricare are either "the spouses or dependents of those in the military", because of course women can be in the military themselves and therefore be covered under Tricare for their service (in fact women make up 20% of the military).

Reading this week's article (the fact sheet) I was reminded of how large a role economics play in health care. In some ways, it is really unfortunate that money matters so much. I was also surprised at how far below poverty level some people seem to be falling. Reading that part, I felt like major economic improvements need to be made before anything else.

As I said in last week's response, I also was slightly worried in how the new health policies will be funded for. It is, however, definitely a nice change and would probably prove to be very important in helping raise the health standards.

Before this reading this article, I had kind of unconsciously attributed health disparities between races to the socioeconomic statuses associated with those races. However, after looking at the data in this article, I realized that SES is only one of the many social factors associated with race. It really surprised me that even when comparing poor white women with poor black women in their rates of hypertension and obesity, there were such great differences. Another really interesting table was the one comparing personal and household incomes of black, white and hispanic women. Black and hispanic women with less education had higher earnings than white women but white women with more education had higher earnings. Additionally, the household incomes of white women were much greater than their personal incomes, indicating that there might be correlations with the dynamics of marriages and the health of their family lives.

Week 5 Reading

I found this reading especially interesting because I always think that socioeconomic status plays a very important role in the disparity in women health. Especially, as the writer says, almost half of all minority children are growing in poverty. This results in the inevitable disparity in these next generations. The socioeconomic status is really a broad idea and this is always a problem because it requires many elements to be considered in the same if the government want to solve it. These elements include historical, social, economic, political, and cultural element. The hardest part I believe is probably the cultural part. I mean, sometimes even the government provides free services to these groups, if this service is contradicting to their religious belief, those people will definitely reject. I remembered one of the readings i did during the summer. It is story about a hmong girl. In this story, there is a wall between hmong's traditional understanding of medicine and treatment and western countries' advanced technology. This barrier somewhat caused the death of that girl. As a result, it is clear to see how important to deal with cultural and religious belief.

The reading really interested me because it relates quite closely to a topic we've been discussing in my social and cultural Anthro class, which is Biological Determinism in the study of race. The article states: "Early research on racial differences in health in the United States viewed racial categories as capturing biological homogeneity and racial disparities in health as genetically determined." It goes on to say how race should not be viewed in this way and I thought I should add what I have learned thus far from our discussions in Anthro. The main problem with classifying race in terms of "biological differences" is that it distorts people's views of health disparities as well as their views of people of other races, suggesting that race indicates a critical difference in human analysis, which is false. Although the article does show several differences in the trends of how health disparities have affected different racial groups I think it's an important point to stress that this data does not indicate that race can be determined by a biological category difference between people.

SES, Race, and Poor Health Effects

Reading “Racial/Ethnic Variations in Women’s Health: The Social Embeddedness of Health” really reiterated how much socioeconomic status catalyzed unequal responses to healthcare among women of color. This stands in stark contrast to early responses to disparities in health (early research in the United States viewed racial differences in health outcomes as genetically determined). I also thought it was interesting how the author made sure to make clear the fact that health disparities and differences between whites and people of color must be examined while still accounting for culture and attitudes. Take the high prevalence of obesity in the Black community. As the author posits, “some evidence suggests that Blacks have more tolerant attitudes toward obesity.” However, these same attitudes may end up being correlated to negative health effects like diabetes and high blood pressure. So then question, then, becomes, how to make sure that people from across racial and cultural backgrounds receive the same treatment and are able to maintain and value a healthy lifestyle when certain cultures might no altogether believe that the factors correlating poor health (ie. a more curvy, full figure) are not negative and might be highly valued?

I was also shocked by much of the information the authors brought up with regards to education. According to reports, “Infants born to Black women in the lowest education category are 1.7 times as likely to die before their first birthday as are infants born to similarly educated White females.” I considered this fact to be the most arresting of the reading and one which indicates the fact that poor health within communities of color are more than just caused or correlated by income and poverty level. Racism and prejudice also stands in the way of minorities and people historically discriminated as a result of their racial, cultural, or ethnic background, and often leaves them with adverse health effects that continue replicating in latter generations.

SES and Health

This article (the new one) made me think about the introsem I am in about Children's Health Disparities. We studied the differences in infant mortality and birth weight based on the mother's health and demographics. Because of that, I wasn't too surprised about this article, but it reinforced some of the ideas we learned.

It is shocking how little is done to close health disparities between races, education levels, and socio-economic status. Even more than simply having basic health, the fact that there are inequalities makes it even worse because we know that we can do better and just aren't. Using the highest health categories should give us guidelines about how to shape policies to close the health disparities.

Week 5 Readings

I found some of the article’s claims to be very interesting, in particular the statistics about gender differences and race differences in health. The article throws out many different statistics, in particular, the one about how white women have a life expectancy at birth that is 5.2 years greater than that of their black peers. However, this statistic doesn’t take into account the socioeconomic differences and other factors that affect this statistic.

Additionally, the fact that the mortality ratio of minority to white for men is similar to the ratio for women suggests a bigger factor explaining the health disparities is race (which also has many factors that may suggest why, for instance socioeconomic status, etc.).

Overall, I thought the article did a good job talking about all the factors associated with the health disparities among different races, but could have been clearer with explaining the reasoning behind some of the statistics.

This reading also reminded me of the health factors presented in class from last week, reinforcing what we learned with statistics that broke down the demographics of the women assessed. Though none of the numbers was particularly surprising, the data really showed that it was a combination of factors that resulted in higher risks for particular groups. Older age, minority status, and a lack of coverage (that was associated with lower SES and income) all had converging effects, indicating the importance of making sure that the health provisions have to be comprehensive enough to cover all the women who may be at risk.

New Week 5 Reading

The fact that women of different ethnicities are predisposed to acquire certain diseases, or are at higher risk of getting them is not very surprising. What is very concerning, however, is the fact that in the US, if you are a woman of color who is has a lower socioeconomic status, you are more likely to acquire diseases and to be unhealthier than people of higher income levels and white people. This is very telling of our health system and the efforts that need to be made to treat the poor and minorities. I really enjoyed reading this article, looking forward to class!

Week 5

This article really assaults the audience with numbers and percentages, which is a little difficult to sift through. I didn't realize how many factors contribute to quality of health,including race and income. Although I realize that correlation does not equal causation, it is still disappointing to see so many "Women of Color" with low percentages of screening. However, it was interesting to note that among all of the key issues, 90% of women had received a Pap test screening, compared with 79% who received a mammogram. It is relieving to know that cancer is still getting women's attention, although maybe we need to shift focus to the more hidden killers, like high blood pressure and diabetes.

Although the reading was brief it brought forth several important points about the health of young women in America. It's important to notice how current this summary is and to see how women are affected by health disparities today. A lot of the points reminded me of our discussion and presentation last time. Especially the topic of diabetes, obesity, and smoking. The ethnic breakdown is something we haven't spent as much time discussing and is essential to explore, however, as we've seen already women have been underrepresented in studies so it may be a little too much to ask for even more specific research at this point. Also I would be interested in learning more about how socio economic status relates to these prevalent health disparities especially as we will be working in Sacramento and San Francisco, two places which present us with women of all different walks of life and backgrounds.

Honestly, it was a bit difficult to read this article, because it listed off so many statistics. However, I found it very informative on this topic. I found the statistics comparing insured women and uninsured women very interesting. I think it’s very sad that lack of health insurance bars so many women from preventative tests like mammographies and pap smears, and I’d be interested to learn about the health policies to increase women’s access to such preventative care. One of the things I wish this article did was to include some statistics about nonelderly men, so that we could draw comparisons.

Reading for Week 5

I found this article very disturbing. The fact that non-elderly women are prone to so many health problems due to the fact that they are women and additionally because of the environments in which they live is very problematic. Non elderly women are child-bearers, workers, caretakers and homemakers. Society is very dependent upon non-elderly women, and if they are at high risk of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and other diseases, it is scary to think what state these non-elderly women will be when they are elderly. What will the state of their children be? Poverty, lack of education, and environment cause many of these risk factors, but the way that race plays a role is also very interesting. It would be very curious to see the correlation between the high risk of non-elderly women based on their race versus their socio-economic status.

Interesting Article About Women and Heart Health

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/heart/articles/2011/02/01/new-campaign-urges-women-to-know-signs-of-heart-attack

I came across this article about women and heart health, which was really interesting to read after last week's presentation about women and heart disease by Dr. Tremmel.

The article says:

"According to the American Heart Association, only 53 percent said they would call 911 even if they thought they were having a heart attack, which is why the federal government is starting a new campaign called Make the Call, Don't Miss A Beat."

It's pretty scary thought that someone may think that they are having a heart attack, but still not call for help. Hopefully this campaign will be successful!

I agree with Kayo in the sense that I wonder what exactly the health care reform bill will do. Yes the fact-sheet said that the recent health care bill will help with the disparities, but on what grounds do they make that assertion? I'm not against the health care bill and I realize that it isn't in the scope of the fact-sheet to discuss specifics, I was just wondering.

Sometimes I found the percentages to be a little confusing and maybe a little misrepresented, for example when the obesity rate for women ages 18-29 was lower than for women ages 30-64, the comparison is between an 11 year gap and 34 year gap and that leads me to doubt the importance of that particular statistic, it would have been more convincing if they had broken up the 30-64 age group and had stats for that. But overall I found it interesting that ethnicity revealed so many disparities and I wonder how much of that can be attributed to socioeconomic status or genetic-predispositions.

Anyways, by the end of it, it's clear to me that non-elderly women represent a gap in our healthcare system and that something should be done about it (both from an economic/burden viewpoint and for quality of life).

In the article, I was surprised at the great proportion of non-elderly women who were living on low income and how many of them had so many health related issues. Coming from a family who has a grandmother that still goes around on her bicycle playing ground golf and the likes, these facts really came as something more like a culture shock. That said, I think it is a really good thing that there are going to be more health reforms where health care would become more accessible. I was curious as to what prompted people to look into non-elderly women, since I get the vague impression that elderly people are usually the focus. I suppose it's nice, however, since taking good care of health from a younger age might lead to a generally better health situation in the older age.

Also, I found it interesting how different races seemed to have different issues in health, with some more than others. This could also be an interesting point to look further into?

That said, on an even more irrelevant note, I was also curious as to how these policies are going to be funded?

Like a lot of other people, I thought it was interesting how the Sex Differences article began by articulating the difference between gender and sex. I think gender is definitely a weaker word to use in the realm of medicine because it implies something that is culturally constructed and variable according to social values. However, sex refers to the physiology of the human body and the way in which it functions. I had never before thought that sex could affect something as significant as the immune system.

The New York Times article was extremely frightening because I consider myself healthy and the thought that I could be predisposed to something as serious as heart disease seems difficult to accept. This is a major reason why such research should continue and be communicated to the public. If it hard for people to swallow themselves, I can see how it could lead Kachmann-Geltz to be treated like a crazy woman.

Week 4 Readings

I found it interesting that the article Sex Difference in Autoimmune Disease noted the difference between the terms “gender” and “sex” and how gender cannot be used to accurately describe the physical and biological differences between men and women. The article also showed the interdisciplinary nature of women’s health, as the attendees of the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health conferences didn’t just include scientists and researchers but also social scientists, public policy makers, legislators, and advocates.

The New York Times article, which seemed to be in favor of the term “gender differences” even when they more closely associated with sex differences, talked about how sometimes women’s symptoms don’t reflect the urgency and extent of their condition. The main subject of the article said she was “treated like a crazy woman” because her symptoms didn’t match the severity of her condition. It makes me wonder how this fact is going to affect the quality and amount of care that women receive, even if tests don't accurately show what is going on.

Both articles were uplifting in showing the efforts that have been made, even though initiated only recently, towards understanding and improving diagnosis and treatment for women. It was surprising to learn that autoimmune diseases are more prevalent in women, with some diseases, like Sjogren’s syndrome, SLE, autoimmune thyroid disease (Hashimoto’s thyroiditis and well as Graves’ disease) and scleroderma, occuring > 80% in women. In regards to the physiological aspects described, I thought it was interesting that there were post-partum flares of disease activity. Does this indicate that women's bodies were not as adequately prepared after pregnancy as they were during the period (perhaps because they used much of their resources to supply the proper nutrients and defenses for the fetus)?
The NYT article illuminated gender differences in heart disease, pointing out that tests are less likely to pick up signs of heart damage in women (which has huge implications for the way diagnoses should be made). The fact that many women (some unknowingly) suffer from microvascular disease pushes further for more research and focus in this area.

Week 4 Readings

Sex differences in autoimmune disease:

I thought the explicit clarification of gender vs. sex was a really important statement to make. Often, medical professionals shy away from a statement of social construction in favor of not discussing what is not completely biological. When I first read the title, I wondered whether the author would make a distinction, and I was actually surprised by it.

I was surprised that so many diseases have such high prevalence among females. Usually, you only hear the common "female" diseases like reproductive-related cancers, but I had no idea that diseases like MS and thyroid diseases had such high female-to-male ratios.

I think information like this should be disseminated to the general public because if we don't know some of this info, chances are most people know even less.

I had never heard that diseases like RA and MS are mitigated by hormones in pregnancy and flare during the post-partum period.

[on an unrelated note, I thought the experimental method of testing hormones in mice by castration was particularly cruel]

The sentence "Never has there been greater interest and funding opportunities in the are of sex difference in autoimmune disease than now" was hope-instilling :)

In Heart Disease, the Focus Shifts to Women:

I was surprised to see that heart conditions have worse results in women than men. Popular media usually sends the message that heart problems are a problem mostly for males.

It's a little disappointing that so little is known about many of the differences in stress related responses, etc., but I'm glad people are discussing it. I, too, was angered by a common response by doctors to symptoms from women. Obviously, they aren't aware either that heart conditions are common among women.

Week Four Readings

The NY Times article raises some interesting points about the impact that disease can have on women's lives, especially if women are naturally more likely to acquire these diseases. Something that became apparent to me while reading this article was the structure of how it was written. I feel like this article was "womanized" in that they appealed to the femininity of the woman, her feelings, her motherhood, where as if this article was written about men's diseases, perhaps some of the concepts would have been presented differently. Just a thought.

I never realized that there was an actual difference between the words "gender" and "sex". This article is very interesting because they take both the research and analytical approach of figuring out why there are differences between men and women in health while also creating distinguishing exactly where in medicine men and women differ. I always knew that because of our physical differences and hormone differences that men and women functioned differently, but I never thought that our differences would affect us so much to differ the rate at which we are susceptible to autoimmune diseases. Taking both of these actions is important so as to be proactive while also looking out for the health of the population in the future.

4th Week Readings

I find it usual but disrespectful that doctors assume that a female patient's symptoms are "in her head." It is a complete disregard for the women's well-being, and a residual prejudice from the days when men assumed that women were simply "hysterical" and "weak." However, I am really glad that a mainstream news website like the New York TImes is reporting on this issue, so that people will take notice. In the other article, I was surprised to find that there is an actual difference between "sex" and "gender' differences, which I had used interchangeably. The article was pretty dense, but very interesting and informative. However, in the conclusion, the article professed high hopes for change, and I noticed that it was written in 2001. That is now 10 years ago, and it doesn't seem like much has chanegd. However, perhaps this is due to my lack of exposure to the medical field?

The article on Sex differences in autoimmune disorders said that at the time of its publication there was an increase in focus on these differences, the article was published in 2001 and it makes me wonder what has changed since the implementation of these new approaches especially those which used the collaborative efforts of different fields. I would hope that they've made significant progress. It really seemed as though they were approaching the topic from several angles.

The article which focused on heart disease reminded me of the morbidity/mortality discussion we had during our second week however it seemed to be somewhat contradicted by "women are less likely than men to develop heart problems, but once the disease does occur, women often fare worse than men."

I was surprised to hear that some women's symptoms were not taken seriously until they almost became fatal, this definitely showed a lack of knowledge in the field and again makes me wonder how this has changed medical approaches since its publication in 2006.

Both articles were rather interesting. For the first one, I thought it was very interesting how they made the distinction of the terms "gender" and "sex" at the beginning. I also thought it was intriguing that people used to study autoimmune disease individually, without trying to put them together or study connections. Although the logic of making studies specific and therefore "manageable" is a very often used tactic, I would have thought that they would put together the similar disease sooner. In a similar way, I suppose that the connection between gender and disease might have escaped people's notice too. That said, it was interesting to observe how all the "key events" highlighted in the paper seems to follow one after another, as if they were influenced by the previous event to happen.

I did also notice that a lot of the experiments done relating to females, was that they were either performed on rats or on non-living things, but hardly ever on humans (I think). Although there might be some risks involved in studying pregnant women, it might be worthwhile to take the study to a more direct place.

For the second article, I think it's really important for doctors to really be careful and listen carefully to what patients say. In this course and the article, the focus is on women, so it might sometimes feel like women are the only ones that usually get this sort of trouble because they are under-studied, but the issue of overlooking details that are not studied yet probably exists in all cases. So this idea could be expanded in a more general sense too?

I thought the two readings this week were really interesting! The first one, about heart disease, was very informative as to the differences between men and women in relation to heart disease. I believe that a lot more research must be done on women, because women are obviously being hurt by this lack of research (i.e. clinicians failing to diagnose microvascular disease, because their diagnostic methods most fittingly address men; lack of knowledge of why microvascular disease is more common in women than men; bypass surgeries historically putting women at greater risk for post-surgery complications). What jumped out at me the most was how the patient, Kim Kachmann-Gelz, was completely disrespected by her physicians. And Dr. Sopko’s suggestion to other physicians, “Let’s listen to her,” seems to imply that most women are not taken seriously by their physicians when their symptoms do not fit what a “normal” male with cardiovascular disease would present. I think this is a major problem in medicine, and I suspect it expands beyond cardiovascular disease.

The second article was a bit over my head, but I still appreciated how informative it was. The background it gave on how research is focusing more and more on sex differences in health gave me hope that more research is being done. Since the article was published in 2001, I wonder how much research has been done since then and if interest in sex differences is still significant.

I'm afraid I didn't really absorb the more technical article. Really what I got out of that article was that there is loads of research being done on sex differences in autoimmune diseases, which I think is great. Honestly I'm just glad it's being funded, and its seems to be producing comprehensive results.

The New York Times article kind of freaked me out, because a perfectly healthy woman got heart disease. Until recently I've thought of heart disease as being associated with mostly men (and heart attacks), of course now I know this isn't the case. I think my misconception is largely due to campaigns for 'traditional' women 's health issues, like for breast and cervical cancer we discussed last week. Anyways, I found this article particularly interesting because doctors didn't catch it at first, it took I think two years after she was waking up from chest pains for a doctor to diagnose her correctly. Indeed from this article it can be seen there is a lot more research to be done in this area of sex differences. Just getting smaller instruments to operate on women with seems to have helped (I found it surprising that this was even an issue).

So the first article (more technical) was from 2001 and the NY Times article was from 2006, clearly there's more work that needs to be done. Anyways, I found both to be interesting.

For the second article, I think the whole idea of herd immunity is really interesting. Especially in the US, I think we have the mindset of thinking of our health as a very personal thing. I think we sometimes get carried away with the idea of individual decisions, for example the resistance against policies making fast food healthier (people should make their own eating decisions). If your health is very likely to impact the health of others, and very rapidly, I think it makes a lot of sense for that decision to be influenced.

I think Kat's response to the first article was super interesting- I'm really curious to learn more about the concept of combining health care and health insurance providers. Also, I was wondering whether somehow less frequent mammograms could end up being more effective since that would mean less of a cost for women and something more women would be willing to invest in?

Week Three Readings

Wow, both of these articles were very though provoking. I found the HPV Vaccination article almost a little disturbing, in a sense. The vaccination is an effort made to increase the health of the women in our country, it is a proactive measure. When parents opt-out for their children, not only are their children not giving consent, but the parents are taking away the child's right to health and protection. Reading this article reminded me of some recent cases of child deaths caused by "prayer healing" in Oregon. Religion is a great thing, but if it starts putting children at risk of their health, some major moral and ethical evaluations must be taken. It is great that they make the vaccine mandatory in elementary school, when the most children attend school. The second article confused me a little. I don't understand why the guidelines recommend women get fewer mammograms. It's very interesting that these proactive measures are not the issues that are "popular" per se, but it is the treatment that get the most public attention. It it these preventative, proactive measures that need more funding so that we can save more money from not having to treat as many sick people.

Reading the first article really made me think about the importance of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka the Health Reform Law), and why it is important that it is not repealed (regardless of politics). The health reform law set in place regulations that patients with health insurance do not have to pay for certain preventive measures, especially mammograms. Coupled with increased health insurance coverage, that means that more women will have access to free mammograms once all of the health reform laws take effect.

I agree that the debate needs to be more than just economics, but I think the economics argument is meant for the people who ignore the pathos appeal. For those people, it is important for them to know that public funding being spent on mammograms is actually going to end up saving them money by not needing as much post-diagnosis care.

I think one definite problem is the Medicare rates. In all parts of women's health care, and all of health care, Medicare consistently pays below operating costs for many procedures. When people realize the importance of these procedures, I think we should increase the amount that we are willing to pay for them, and we should not have to place doctors in the position of choosing between bankruptcy and preventing breast cancer.

Going with what Kat said, I think it is important to have a structure where health insurance companies actually benefit from preventing disease among their patients. It just seems so obvious, but it rarely happens. Instead patients and their health insurers are left on opposite sides, struggling over bills and what procedures should be covered.

About the mammogram age guidelines, the idea that women over 40 should not get annual mammograms is absurd. There are thousands of women over age 40 who get breast cancer each year. When my mom was diagnosed, she was 42/3, and according to this guideline, she should not have gotten a mammogram more than every other year. The entire reason that her cancer was found early was because she did get regular mammograms, twice a year actually.

---

On the topic of HPV vaccines, I believe that all pre-teens, teenagers, and young adults, both male and female, should receive HPV vaccines. However, until pharmaceutical companies are able to develop a vaccine without the side-effects on the scale of Gardasil, I don't think it should be mandatory. It would be like forcing the side-effects on people. I think it is more of a moral responsibility that people who are sexually active should be vaccinated.

Personally, I think the debate should be more about the safety of requiring vaccinations rather than increasing sexual activity. Analogy: (?) People who commonly wear seatbelts in a car aren't more likely to stop wearing a seatbelt if they know that emergency surgery has improved. It is more that people who are conditioned to be safe will continue to be safe.

the first link i posted briefly discusses the impact of the health reform on preventive procedure coverage

the second link is a very recent article about the guidelines, etc.

One of the things that stood out to me in the first article was the focus on HPV as a women's health issue (like breast cancer), as it was used as a justification for the vaccination to be compulsory for girls of middle school age. (However, the problem is compounded by so many interest groups, from the government to special interest organizations, that the support for it is varied.) What I found interesting, in addition to the economic concerns that other people have pointed out, is the argument made about the transmissibility of HPV: chiefly the rationale that because it isn't "casually transmissible", it requires less protection against it. This brought me back to the idea of HPV as solely a women's issue; if others (like family members and the close community surrounding an individual) are impacted by a woman's diagnosis, isn't this much more than just a women's health concern?

Regarding the mammogram article, despite whatever basis the new guidelines have to make their decisions, I feel that the new recommendations made seem to fall short of the adequate protection and assurance that women deserve. It is also counterintuitive in a sense because it is better to be prepared early on than to face the consequences much later.

Week 3 Readings

The first article was a little vague, in that it didn't make a clear point. I wasn't sure why less mammograms were needed, and I wasn't sure if the insurance didn't cover health insurance, or if these "at-risk" women simply didn't have insurance at all. However, it is a concern that policy-makers are trying to save money on such a serious disease as breast cancer. The second article was much more coherent. I think it is great that they are trying to protect as many young women as possible. However, the article did not address the health risks tied to the vaccine, which lead many parents to be wary about administering it to their daughters (but there are health risks tied to every vaccine, I suppose).

3rd week reading

I have to say that the mandatory vaccination is an issue that i'm really curious about. Personnaly, I believe that mandatory vaccination is not good for everyone. Although the writer say that there are some unproven theory alleging connections between vaccines and illness, I think vaccination can do harm to human body. At least, incidents that vaccinations causing death happened before. Whether vaccination is safe enough still needs to be proved. As a result, I feel everyone has the right to decide whether he or she wants to be vaccinated and take the risk of any bad results. I think that despite some of the vaccines that had been proved safe to body and are crucial to prevent diseases, especially world-wide epidemic, other vaccines which are not must-needed should not be listed as mandatory vaccinations . I mean the state government should cover those vaccinations in medical programs so that prople who are willing to be vaccinates do not need to worry about the cost but people can decide by themselves.
From the reading, I think the public health policy has to reach a balanced point that taking factors such as social impact, employment, economics and public health into consideration. Also, the coverage of health insurance can largely affect the population that receive the treatment. In terms of making the guideline, those people need to seriously consider the social impacts because any changes may cause higher unemployment rate in the future, which can result in fewer people having health insurance.

Readings for the 20th

After reading the articles I agree with a lot of what has already been said. It is very frustrating when money becomes more important than health, but it seems to happen more regularly then the public is made aware of. It makes several processes even more confusing and perhaps more stressful than they already are. One point that stood out to me was "the new guidelines recommend that women in their 40's no longer have annual mammograms... women ages 50 t0 74 have them only every other year."?? this seems kind of ridiculous to me, how would someone catch a sign of cancer only every other year?

The debate on Gardasil was a little more familiar, I think both sides have valid arguments and I can only speak for myself. My mother has always been a bit suspicious of too much medicine and treatment and she has passed this on to me, I try to stay away from taking unnecessary medicines and so forth, however, she was definitely in support of getting my Gardasil shots, because of the evidence of their effectiveness.

As Issra said, I agree that the first article on mammograms seem to be primarily concerned with the economics of the related issue. Evidently, the implications on less prevention exist, and I think this was a very serious issue that could have been taken up more. I was rather confused by why such a policy was passed in the first place. The last quote seems to suggest that law makers recommended less mammograms in order to save money in the health care system, which is a very depressing reason. I would have appreciated knowing more about that aspect.

The second article was clearer in that I can see both sides of the issue. However, I thought most of the reasons against not having compulsive vaccination to be rather ridiculous. That said, I have heard before that the vaccine can cause some individuals to pass out. Depending on what's around them, they might hit and hurt themselves. But I still think it's a "risk" worth taking?

I thought both readings were really interesting. After reading the first article about mammograms, I recalled what I once learned about Kaiser Permanente. Someone, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I was told that Kaiser Permanente is unique in that it provides both health care and health insurance to its clients. In other words, those who go to a Kaiser hospital are insured by Kaiser. What’s interesting is that this combination makes Kaiser Permanente more invested in preventative care, because if their patients develop, say breast cancer, it would be way more expensive for them (Kaiser insurance) to pay for breast cancer treatment, than it would be for routine mammograms. Could combining healthcare and health insurance providers be a way to solve some of the financial issues surrounding mammograms?

I really liked how the second article about HPV vaccines highlighted bigger ethical issues surrounding vaccination of children. And I agree with Jessica that the religious opposition to mandatory HPV vaccination is pretty bizarre.

Something that struck me most about the first reading was that the main priority of the article was economics and finances rather than about women’s health and the decline of mammograms. For instance, the article mentioned more about the financial impacts for companies of breast cancer screening devices than about the health implications or reasons behind the decline in mammograms and increasing age of women who get them.

I found the article about HPV vaccines to be interesting in that the vaccines were still resisted even though they were beneficial to one’s health. In particular, the article illustrates the stigma around getting vaccines or getting treated since HPV is spread primarily among sexually active people and injection drug users. The article also made me curious to think about other methods to improve women’s health without such polarizing and extreme attempts such as mandated vaccines.

The mammogram article made me angry because mammograms are so easy to get (as in you can just go in and get one and there isn't any preparation needed), saves so many lives, and is being cut back. The second article made me less mad, mostly because I've heard both sides of the argument for/against HPV vaccines before. If I was a mother, getting my daughter the vaccine would be a no-brainer, if she can avoid cancer and/or STIs in the future because of this vaccine I'm going to get it for her. The whole issue of the vaccine contradicting abstinence (promoting promiscuity), is ludicrous to me. However, I think the argument that our children are receiving too many vaccines is interesting. I think this is something a lot of people in Europe feel. I learned this from experience because when I was living in London and got a H1N1 flu shot (via an american military base), a lot of people kind of rolled their eyes and said 'you americans are always so cautious'. But again, I think vaccines save lives so it would take a lot to convince me against them.

I found it very interesting that women live longer than men, despite higher morbidity rates. This basic fact may play a role in the reason why the topic of women’s health has been so overlooked, since people might misinterpret the higher life expectancies to mean that women have better health. I also found the sociological explanations behind the disparity in women’s health to be a very insightful fact. I think that when people hear of health discrepancies between males and females, they try to point to biological differences as a reason. However, factors such as exposure to stressors and socioeconomic status make a profound impact on health.

One thing that stuck with me in my head was that because women have lower mortality rates but higher morbidity rates, they are essentially leading lower quality lives. Although women live longer, more of their years are spent having to fight chronic or acute illness.

The question as to why extensive study has not been conducted also concerned me. While, of course, it would be beneficial to conduct studies to the biological difference in treatment reactions, disease occurrence, I would assume that the high costs of the studies may deter people. However, I would think that being able to effectively treat illnesses in women, as opposed to trying to use the same medicines as men, would be a good enough reason to invest in further studies. If for nothing else, you would think that pharmaceutical companies would want to market even more newly developed female-specific drugs as more effective as a result of such research studies.