Doctors Mistake Toes for Genitals

This woman has difficulty finding a doctor who can tell the difference between her toenails and her genitals:

Twice, TWICE this year I have gone to doctors to be seen for toenail fungus. For those of you who have not studied medicine, toenail fungus grows on the ends of toes. For those of you who have not studied anatomy, toes are at the very far end of feet, which, in turn are at the very far end of legs. What is at the other end of legs from toes? Genitals. Genitals are approximately a yard away from toes. TWICE this year I have gone to doctors, two different doctors, to seek treatment for toenail fungus, and TWICE these doctors have 1) not treated the toenail fungus and 2) tried to foist a fucking pap smear on me. For those of you who have never had a pap smear, it is a test that helps determine if there is something wrong with a woman’s genitals. The same genitals that are a yard away from the toenail fungus. What the fuckity fuck? The doctor yesterday even told me that I probably needed psychotherapy because I didn’t want a pap smear. For those of you who are not familiar with psychotherapy, it is a branch of medicine that deals with things that are going on inside your head. Again, if you have not studied anatomy, the head is at the completely opposite end of the body from the toes.
This is part of what is wrong with medicine, for women, in this country: Any complaint that you have, even self-evident toenail fungus, is considered to be a problem with either your genitals or your head.
IF I WERE A GUY, and I went to the doctor with toenail fungus, the doctor would not insist of inspecting my scrotum. And if a doctor wanted to inspect my scrotum instead of my funky toes, guess who would be considered not right in the head? Yeh, the doctor. – See more at: http://www.hipmama.com/node/45130#sthash.miOAhwaV.dpuf

For other examples of doctors’ confusion about anatomy: http://forwomenseyesonly.com/2012/10/17/what-some-male-doctors-do-when-women-say-no/

confused doctor.ashx

About forwomenseyesonly

Hi. My name is Sue and I am interested in promoting holistic and respectful health care.
Gallery | This entry was posted in cervical cancer, feminist, health, medical misconduct, pap test, pap test coercion, pelvic exam, unneccessary pelvic exam, unnecessary pap test, unnecessary pelvic exam and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Doctors Mistake Toes for Genitals

  1. Ro says:

    The fact that women are considered to be psychologically out of sorts for declining these exams/screening is a huge problem. It’s very disturbing. There are plenty of reasons to decide against screening – all of which are completely valid and should be accepted without question. If a person decides not to do something that has the possibility of resulting in negative side effects, physical or otherwise, that is their decision (and even if there was no chance of any harm it should still be left up to the individual and respected). I think I mentioned this briefly in a comment a while back, but when I first started doing my research, there was one doctor who recommended girls who were scared of their first exam to go see a hypnotist. If someone has to be hypnotized into believing something is right, then in my opinion, it’s obvious that there is something not quite right about it.

    • Alex says:

      To the woman with the toenail fungus: You can try black walnut tea (made from the green hulls around the nut) to pour on that. Dave Canterbury did a video on that (on Youtube- it’s under Useful & Medicinal Trees of the Eastern Woodlands #1). That’s in remedy to that situation (if you get this).
      Any interface with sexual areas as a product of someone else’s decision-making is an attack (a medical/iatrogenic variation, in this case) & these things they “suggest” have a massive amount of risk & inaccuracy, plus if you were worried about something that’s massively rare to begin with (and have no reason to believe that you’ll get just because you’re a woman & only women can get it) there are blood tests & home testing things as alternatives (it also seems that sonar/ultrasound stuff works for a bunch of stuff, too- just be careful becasue there’s an internal version they try to spring on people). I say this a lot, but I don’t know how much you know.

      Ro, you phrased it wonderfully. Good to hear from you again, by-the-way.

    • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

      Ro, couldn’t agree more.
      I wouldn’t be prepared to accept much risk at all for a rare cancer…so pap tests were always out for me, the numbers concerned me. Near zero risk of cancer v 77% lifetime risk of referral for colposcopy/biopsy. I think many women would feel the same way and that’s why this information is never provided to them.
      The most pressure is applied for this testing because the program can only “work” if they can get 80% screened regularly and so informed consent would not have worked with this program. We then see the scare campaigns, psychological and unethical tactics, target payments etc. to get women screened…of course, the proper course of action would have been to dismiss any thought of a program. If it can only work without informed consent (or consent itself) and with lots of unethical tactics, it’s NOT a suitable population screening program. Only a paternalistic profession could consider it appropriate to go ahead and simply force, misled and pressure women into testing.
      It’s also why we get the absurd medical advice, “try some meditation” or “you might need some therapy” or women thinking of having a GA….all because numbers are so important to protect the program.
      We may see a lot more pressure with breast screening as the numbers drop…vested interests will be desperate to keep the machines rolling and the dollars mounting up.

      • Kleigh says:

        Why are woman not concented about this exams? Weather doctors like it or not it involves penetration of sexuall organs. ther for preventing woman from decling is rape. I wont have doctors demand i have genital exams.

      • Alex says:

        The program didn’t work, because of all the problems it’s caused. If something is a problem in itself it’s not helpful. That’s like a gun disarm that wasn’t all that effective to begin with, but if it DOES work for that, it also gets you shot as you twist the gun out of the other person’s hands.

        I’ve been wondering if the money drawn in from all this is a bit of a trophy. It certainly may be something these kinds of people would do for free, or they may very well do anything for money- but I wonder if that’s a possible perk that doesn’t get thought of. The hostility of this situation is appalling- and it IS hostility, not altruism (these things aren’t help & charitable feelings don’t entitle someone to impose whatever actions they please, anyway).

        Psychological harassment & situational coercion are not situations of leaving someone to make their own decisions. Prevention from declining, given these dynamics, is rape (since it’s an imposed penetration, whatever the specific variations). Another point is that deceit vitiates consent (it’s a more lawyer-like word meaning “impair” or “render ineffective”). Them conveying false impressions of safety & effectiveness (whether through false information or omitting things) is a deception.

      • Ro says:

        Elizabeth – There was an article I found the other day and I wish I would’ve saved the link for it. I tried to find it again but couldn’t. The opening line said “Cervical screening does not test for cancer.” It then went on to say that it only served to detect abnormalities which could end up preventing cancer in some cases. It was on a European website, for either Scotland or Wales I believe. Imagine if the first thing women were told in the US, Australia, Canada, etc was that they were not screening for cancer – only abnormalities which in some cases may lead to cancer. Informed consent is a great thing and it should be provided everywhere. I don’t know about Australia, but there has been more emphasis on breast cancer screening in the US as of late. Last week, there was an article published saying that mascara, wood finishes, pollution, and a few other things were all linked to breast cancer. Obviously, most women and people in general have at the very least been exposed to wood finishes and pollution. Whenever I have my concerns about something, I tend to follow European medical journals. They seem to be far more accurate and evidence-based. For example, I know that in the US (at least it’s something I’ve heard) people say that coffee is linked to reproductive cancers. I decided to do my own research and in the UK, they discovered that in heavy coffee drinkers (those who drink upwards of 5 cups a day) it can actually be a cancer preventative – particularly for prostate cancer, which would be considered a reproductive cancer. I’ve found that a lot of the European studies contradict those in the US, but their mortality rates are close to the same as ours. Another study in particular is one involving alcohol. The European study said that drinking one glass of an alcoholic drink with every meal would not lead to harm, but binge drinking was the problem. Even then, it has only been directly linked to cancer of the liver and a few cases of breast cancer or throat cancers. They haven’t figured out the exact link to breast cancer yet, but in the throat cancers, the patients were both binge drinkers and heavy smokers. It was a combination of ingredients in the cigarettes and alcholic drinks that led to those cancers. Alcohol can help with digestion and in some cases has been linked to helping to regulate abnormal sleeping patterns. However, in the US, you will be told that a glass of alcohol every 2 weeks is too much and that you’re putting yourself at risk. My personal belief is that here in the US, it’s all about pharmaceutical cures. If there are natural cures for anything (such as coffee or alcohol – alcohol within moderation of course), they are immediately considered harmful and we are warned against them. A very good example of this is B17. If you have the time and are interested in natural medicine, I would definitely recommend reading up on the B17 case a bit. Anyways, my point was that in countries that are very much reliant upon the pharmeceutical company and have an excess of medical “care”, seem to cover up possible natural remedies when compared to countries who do not have an excess or rely completely on chemical medicine. As I’ve stated before, I personally believe that there is a time and place for modern medicine – it can help people and it has helped people. There is a time and place where seeing a doctor/physician/specialist is a necessity and it will lead to proper treatment. However, the system has been misused and abused, especially in the US, in my opinion.

    • Alice says:

      There is a very precise term for the situation like that: it’s called “bikini medicine”.

      It reflects the doctors’ obsession with female genitals and breasts. Whether a woman is filling a new patient paperwork or seeing a doctor for an unrelated reason, she is inevitably asked about Pap smears and/or mammograms. And if the woman says she doesn’t want to ba a part of these screening programs (humiliating, painful, dangerous yet profitable programs) she is yelled at, lectured, coerced, declared irresponsible, told to see a psychiatrist or undergo counselling. Nothing of the like happens to men though.

      • Kleigh says:

        In the US thats not what were told. we are told it is cancer screening. When they put it like that rue it sounds like a peace of crap and why whould woman want to go thru such a violating painfull exam if they knew the truth. w we have been told it is something all woman must dot o stay healthy. what a big lie.

  2. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    Ro, I attended the Evidence Live Conference in Oxford back in March and it was an eye-opener. That sort of honesty is rare and we’re usually locked out of it.
    Big Pharma are all powerful, they’ll recruit a specialist to back their new drug and then spend millions promoting it to us and doctors. The research backing up the benefits of the new drug might be flawed and any negative results might be suppressed, and never released. So nasty side effects and bad outcomes won’t be mentioned to anyone. The profession in the UK are very concerned about this situation and are considering a number of measures to address this serious problem. Also, a rare condition gets no research, because the dollars aren’t there, it’s therefore of no interest to Big Pharma.

    Big Pharma also, have the resources to attack anyone who speaks out, exposing them. There was some discussion about a fighting fund for doctors who have to fight them and protect their reputations and their patients.
    Ever noticed how many research papers are around pondering ways of getting women screened or why women don’t screen, these papers are usually funded by the screening programs or another vested/political interest. Ever wondered why we have virtually no information on numbers who have unnecessary cone biopsies, or, is prolapse linked to cone biopsy? (after decades of testing)
    They don’t want to know about that, it threatens the program and their livelihood, so it’s not funded. So research is skewed, only the “right” projects are funded, so groups like the NCI are so terribly important and a rare source of unbiased information. That’s why those charged with protecting these programs hate the NCI, they are a thorn in their side. Ever noticed when these people go out to attack Peter Gotzsche or the NCI, they flannel about with emotive language, but can’t meet his/their points. They’re defending the program and their best interests, not us.

    I disregard most of the stuff coming from the Cancer Council, they lost my respect and trust many years ago when they continued to ignore informed consent for women. They seem to think it’s acceptable to push screening if it saves one person, too bad if it harms huge numbers in the process.

    You make some good points, your reading will protect you.
    We have to be very careful what we believe, look carefully at the speaker, who is backing this research? What are his affiliations? There is one group here parading as a support group for victims of cervical cancer, but I believe they’re protecting the program. One of their board members is doing research on young women, comparing pap tests with Gardasil records and this group have said they’re concerned that our Govt is thinking of excluding women under 25 from cervical screening.
    The evidence is clear: screening is of no benefit to these women, it’s harmful…so what is their real motivation?
    Natural remedies are often slapped down because they lose control of us and there is no money in it for them. Some doctors scoff at HPV self-testing…a huge threat to their livelihood, imagine the millions lost if most women knew they couldn’t benefit from pap testing, biopsies etc.

    America spends the most on healthcare, but has much poorer outcomes when compared to other developed countries. Excess is profitable, but does not result in better outcomes, it hurts lots of people and misses too many real problems. There is an excellent lecture on this topic, I’ll post it under Education.

    • OverItAll says:

      I don’t bother keeping up with the US “suggested guidelines”; no dr follows them and they’re always far from evidence-based. I follow WHO’s guidelines unless my gut tells me otherwise. My body has functioned perfectly, with the exception of parts of my childhood when I had clear signs of kidney failure (bwf

      • OverItAll says:

        Sorry, using touchscreen phone.
        (Before I found out about my kidney issue) and no dr so mucgh as considered a kidney problem might be the cause of my foamy urine, swelling, back pain, etc.

        Go with your gut. It’s never wrong. Research, research, research and when you think you know it all, research more. Knowledge IS power.

    • Ro says:

      Elizabeth – Thank you for sharing that video! It confirmed my thoughts about just how the system is being abused. I wasn’t aware of the fact that there are incentives here. I knew there were elsewhere, but in the US, there seems to be the idea that incentives are not part of it. Up until this point, I thought doctors worked off of a salary (which is how it should be in my opinion).

      It’s awful that side effects are never mentioned. It’s getting ridiculous, actually. Perhaps I’m just more aware of it now because I’ve been studying the matter. Just today, I saw an advertisement for a drug called lypozene and they were advertising it as a miracle drug which helps you to “healthily” lose body fat instead of exercising or changing your dieting habits. They literally said “forget eating right and exercising, just take this pill”. It wasn’t those exact words, but you get the point. I’m glad to hear that at least the UK are sort of championing against misuse/abuse within the system. At least someone is fighting for it. I assumed as much though, considering a lot of the accurate information seems to be based from organizations in the UK or neighboring countries.

      All of the information I’ve read about why women choose not to screen, save for the one I mentioned in my previous comment (There was a whole section on the side about informed consent and why women choose not to screen. Innacuracy/possible unnecessary harm was listed as one of the reasons. The article itself pushed screening at the end of course, but because of the other information about informed consent and possible harms, while it still bothered me, it didn’t seem quite as antagonistic as usual), has said that it’s because they’re too modest or that they tense up which causes the screening to be painful, as though it’s the patient’s fault. While we’re on the subject, something I’ve found odd is that women throw the word “prude” around when reprimanding other women for not undergoing screening/exams. That word is a reference to sexuality, so does that mean most women do view the exam as something sexualized? It’s something to question, anyways.

      I feel the same way about ACOG (I’m not sure if they’re the same/part of/affiliated with the cancer council, I’m not completely familiar with all of the organizations).

      Something you may be interested in – apparently they are still screening the whole population of women as a form of research in regards to finding a cure/perfecting screening something along those lines. Surely, they should have accomplished as much by now, but either way. If you do a search on hospitals/offices that are affiliated and/or run by medical schools, most of them have a section where women can sign up to participate in a study currently going on involving cancer screening. There isn’t much information aside from that, so I’m not quite sure what exactly is going on but women are currently being use as guinea pigs of sorts for research purposes.

      I think in the under 25 group, a lot of it goes back to what Alex has said about general pervy-ness. Also, a higher chance of innacuracy so that means more money.

      In the US, they have diluted/made illegal plenty of natural cures. Primarily B17, as I’ve mentioned before, but there are others as well. A lot of “natural” cures are not actually such. There are plenty you can get, but most of them have been dilluted or chemically enhanced, so the pharmaceutical companies even have control over the natural market at this point. In the US, women 50 and older (I believe that’s the age range) are being offered HPV testing alongside pap screening, but they have to undergo screening in order to have HPV testing. It should be the other way around.

      • OverItAll says:

        HPV testing starts at 35. They’ll do it for the under 35 ONLY after an “abnormal” pap, AND biopsy AND the patient/woman MUST DEMAND it. And even then, the “under 35″ gets shot down.

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        That’s interesting because I’ve heard a few US doctors talk about adding the HPV test to pap testing for those 30 and older. Of course, the HPV test just adds to over-investigation when it’s used incorrectly. You can use it to test for HPV after treatments, which is what we do here in Australia, of course, it would be much better for the woman to be tested before the pap test. I assume we test after so they can protect over-treatment and keep the woman in the dark…if she’s HPV+ after treatment, well, she’ll in for a lot more of everything and if HPV- they’ll scream…success!
        When women talk about the HPV test online notice how few understand the real significance of being HPV- or of the HPV test itself. Almost all assume it adds to the pap test, but it wouldn’t occur to them it could and should stand alone. Even fewer understand if you’re HPV- you can’t benefit from pap tests, colposcopy, biopsy or a “treatment’.
        That’s all kept under wraps…to keep waiting rooms and day procedure full of worried women.

  3. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    Of course, the Cancer Council feel differently when men are involved and are much more measured in their recommendations when it comes to prostate screening.
    You could argue screening might save a few men and ignore the awful over-treatment, but no, that’s unacceptable. Yet they have no problem doing that for women…I believe their attitudes are unacceptable and also, we have a program in place for cervical screening, none for prostate screening, and lots of doctors etc. are determined to protect men and make sure there never is a program.
    So attitudes are still very different when women are involved, I think we’ve always been viewed as public and medical property. Paternalistic and perhaps, unhealthy/warped attitudes were present when this program started, the profession was largely made up of men…the perfect storm. So women continue to be treated badly and to suffer at the hands of the medical profession and these programs who view us as mere numbers.

    • Ro says:

      I’m sure there is certainly less pressure on men when they decline screening, but I know that prostate cancer screening is still pushed quite a bit in the US. There are billboards, advertisements, etc, all saying that men should be screened. None of the risks are ever mentioned up front. If a patient asked, he may be given the risks, but they aren’t very much out in the open here either. Most men think it is something they must do to remain healthy. As I said, I’m sure there’s less pressure and it’s probably easier for them to get ahold of accurate information if they so wish, but there’s still a lot of emphasis but on screening for men here in the US.

      • Alex says:

        Well, one thing- and it’s a bit of a psychological point: Sociopaths tend to be very big on self-preservation. A man constitutes a much bigger threat (usually)- at the very least, he’ll be less likely to accept shady information (I was reading about how some pharmacists don’t give girls that morning after pill, saying that it’s illegal at their age when it’s not- the girls just give up after the first question). The concept of being countered & “hurt” may be a factor.

        Another point is manipulation: a man doesn’t generally have as much susceptibility to being manipulated. Having less trust (seeing this other person as, at least potentially, an enemy), less concern for their feelings (their “side” of it is, basically: “But I want to attack you- what about me?”), and less emotionality (women ARE more emotional, it’s just not a flaw). Consideration & benefit of the doubt are things that sometimes snag women. Plus, there’s the whole “having a blemish” kind of thing- everything’s got to be perfect & being that way is like being ugly/immature/defective/lower. A lot of women tend to trust other women & this can lead to a scam or an antagonistic ideology spreading- let me assure you: it is NOT this way with men. Women might get very competitive with each other, but it seems the overall assumption is that, on serious things, other women will help you out- particularly if it’s something that’s generally a female issue.

        Frankly, and I don’t mean this as an insult, men are a bit more “mindless” than women. It’s easier to prey on concerns that someone has thought about (and, potentially, obsessed over). Men tend to not feel guilty as much as women if someone doesn’t like something they’ve done (in fact, they may just glory in it- causing an enemy a problem is a pleasure). A woman would know how a woman thinks, so she might be able to trick another woman better than a man- but that isn’t the way it goes with men, quite the opposite (also, there’s not nearly as much of an intimidation factor if a woman is starting problems with a man as there is the other way around).

        One more thing: There tends to be a very life-antagonistic style with sociopaths & there would be a somewhat subtle connection to women with that (for obvious reasons, directed at obvious areas). If you look at the overall pattern of allopaths, there is a lot of “against” themes. It’s something I put in an earlier post, but there style is/was very “not” hospitable, very “not” effective, very “not” true information, very “not” functional style of assessment. There’s a big concept of overturning something (acting as though something is a certain way in spite of it really not being that way, for instance).

        I tend to figure that their “compass points backwards,” since a counter-intuitive drive is still a drive- that’s why one thing wins out over the other (if there’s any debate at all). They’d feel pushed around by the urge to be counter-intuitive, if they had an original alignment that was different to begin with (and, of course, that could just go around in cirlces endlessly)- this is where they landed. Could have been otherwise, but it isn’t. Maybe believing that there’s no such thing as evil just because the church lied about it at some point was a mistake? These traits would show up occasionally in ancient cultures (a bit more directly, but the same themes: constant lying, parasitic behavior, being sexually confrontational to women, etc…). I was reading about how the Eskimos would just throw someone off the ice for being that way- apparently without any concern for their feelings of oppression or self-preservation. A cool idea if you have ice cliffs, but you get the idea.

  4. Can you file a formal complaint about these physicians with your state’s medical board? Here in California it was very easy for me to find the complaint form online to be submitted to the CA state medical board. That is disgraceful and disturbing.

  5. Kleigh says:

    I heard that they somtimes back the doctor.

    • OverItAll says:

      They definitely cover the doctors @sses. My claims in FL from 4 years ago have “disappeared”. Doesn’t matter; all but 1 have conveniently gone into “early retirement” and the last one has inoperable terminal end-stage brain cancer and no one is willing to send a dying “good” doctor to prison.

      I also have 3 in CA on my doctors who withheld my child’s vasa previa and velamentous cord insertion yet still okayed me for homebirth. This one took a VERY long thought since 1 of the 3 doctors was 1 of 2 who does vaginal breech births…

  6. Kleigh says:

    American doctors wont give up the pap. i read about how the hpv screen will be added when a pap is done. they whould never tell woman just to have the hpv screening. they act like the pap smear is the top of the line lol. if you ever read doctors talking about pap smears you whould think its 100% accruate and because we have a screening for cc we should use it” Even tho its from the 1940s . would they use 1940s tests on the heart. the natuer of this screening is barberic and disrespectful twards woman in my opinion.

  7. Kleigh says:

    doctors dont as far as I know tie prosate exams with unrelated health care and medications like they do with pap smears. i read somthings that give the impretion that mens right to refuse are respected more for some reson. I dont hear people guilt trip them with childern or family.

    • Alex says:

      There’s no reason to feel guilty if someone brings up children or family. Just because someone says “you’ll die & leave them all behind” doesn’t mean it’s true. You might as well feel bad not checking for landmines in your front lawn.

      P.S.- I understand that someone might ACTUALLY feel guilt & that that is the extant situation that’s there, but I wouldn’t trust them as a source of information. There’s no reason to presume honesty or accuracy with someone like this. If another woman hated you & kept calling you fat (even though you have not one roll on you & your stomack doesn’t stick out like a bubble, either), would you believe her? The picture of a lie doesn’t have to include devious looks or evil laughter (in fact, it probably wouldn’t most of the time- simply because it defeats the purpose of deceiving someone). It’s just like certain attacks don’t have to include any wrestling or screaming- although that’s the cliche.

  8. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    Alex, the other point, the chance of dying from cc and leaving your family behind is VERY low…the chance of being distressed and harmed by testing and over-treatment, especially with non-evidence based screening program, is very high.
    It is plain wrong to dismiss the much higher risk of harm, and they may argue that the chance of bleeding to death after an excess cone biopsy or developing a life-threatening infection is low, but so is the chance of developing and dying from cervical cancer!

    It’s so transparently about getting the numbers in, it has nothing to do with what’s actually best for us. It makes me furious the complete lack of concern for the huge numbers left worse off by this testing and as I’ve said before, few women are making an informed decision TO test.

    I found your post on the compliance of women very interesting, I’ve often wondered why so few women actually LOOK at this testing or even consider it a choice they can reasonably decline.
    IMO, there is a difference between men and women, and I’m generalizing here, perhaps, unfairly, but some women believe they’re being responsible with their health simply following recommendations, they almost have a need to please, not to make waves. Others view it as being “looked after” by the Govt and doctors. Other trust doctors and the program, blind faith. Others are afraid to decline or feel overwhelmed in the consult room or, by the constant letters “inviting” them to screen. Instead of feeling angry, they may feel guilty, afraid, stressed, apologetic etc.
    I also, wonder whether women are less likely to complain and challenge disgraceful conduct and attitudes of nurses, doctors, medical receptionists etc.
    When you consider the profession was made up entirely of men for a very long time, hardly surprising certain attitudes prevail…and IMO, are passed down to medical students. It’s also, not surprising that some women accept doctors as authority figures, they have the right to lecture, dictate, coerce etc.
    There is a slow awakening happening though, more women are starting to see that their body belongs to them, not to screening programs, the medical profession or anyone else.

    • Alex says:

      I alway wonder what happens when a woman is in this situation. They say “this” & the concept isn’t to conteract “this”? What “this” consists of is a problem & they want to not have things go that way. She’d hit the brakes if she was about to get into an crash- why not if someone else was trying to cause it?

      I think it may have to do with looking for support in an enemy & finding none. I’ve noticed a very common trend (particularly in America) where someone basically tries to “recruit” the other person as their means of dispute. It’s very opponent-reliant and if they can’t convert or convince someone of their “case” (or get them to say something hypocritical, or catch them in a lie, or something along those lines) then the whole initiative falls apart. It’s like using an enemy’s momentum against them, taken to an extreme degree.

      I wonder if a mother tells her daughter to not duck if someone throws a punch at her? It certainly seems like they’ve fostered this obsessively non-confrontational attitude in the younger generation & act hurt if that daughter of hers doesn’t go along with that strategy (like it’s an implied insult & saying “you’re not good enough”). In this case, it’d be subjugation by guilt- not actually being wrong.

      One other thing: Something doesn’t just happen because the said something- that’s, more or less, the concept of authority. Someone may or may not be right- their rank means nothing. It would be like saying what a priest does isn’t wrong- that’s called “thinking by analogy” (like eating someone’s heart to gain their courage was the first example I heard, but you get the idea). If someone gets stabbed with a screwdriver instead of a knife, that’s not an attack because a screwdriver is a tool & a knife is a weapon? The properties of a situation don’t change because of designation.

  9. OverItAll says:

    Here’s an interesting article. A bit off topic. Apparently women who are “slow” can be court-ordered to be sterilized without consent but a “slow” man must repeatedly beg to be sterilized and dr’s try to convince him against it. In other words, it’s ok to sterilize women with mental slowness without informed consent but it should be a very last resort for men and only after attempting to talk them out of it… http://news.yahoo.com/uk-court-oks-vasectomy-man-cant-consent-124002488.html?.tsrc=lgwn

  10. Ro says:

    OverItAll and Elizabeth – Perhaps I was wrong about age, that’s just what one person told me. Either way, it’s a lot of run-around and the program is completely backwards, based off of the evidence. I’ve heard of women declining the HPV test because they’re in a lifelong monogamous relationship and feel they’re at very low risk, yet they still go for pap testing every year.

    Kleigh – I myself wonder why they have not come up with new, more accurate, non-invasive technology to serve the public. They are constantly progressing other programs, however, this one has not been updated since the 40s. It really makes me wonder. They do have non-invasive and more accurate alternatives available, just not publicly (at least not in the US). Certainly, at this point in time with the developed technology, women could even test themselves. While still painful for some I’m sure, at least symptomatic women or women who felt they were high risk and wanted to participate could avoid the psychological harms. It is entirely barbaric and disrespectful. However, when you have a high percentage of women being compliant and most doctors wanting to keep the current system, it can be difficult for things change. Things are beginning to shift, though. It’s just something that unfortunately, will probably take quite some time to change entirely.

    • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

      Ro, it’s because women don’t understand that HPV- means pap tests can’t help them, you’re not at risk of cc. Hardly surprising when their doctors are adding the HPV to pap testing to “give women added protection”, of course, it just causes confusion and leads to the most over-investigation.
      You can’t make informed decisions weighing up lies and misinformation.

      I won’t be testing for HPV, I’m content with my near zero risk of cc, but for women who want to test and many women have been scared to death, they should be given the chance to test for HPV…with the most important information of all…HPV- and you can re-test for HPV in 5 or 10 years time (depending on age) or you might choose to forget all further testing if you’re HPV- and no longer sexually active or confidently monogamous.
      Those HPV+ should not be rushed into “treatments” or anything else, they should simply be offered a pap test every 5 years until they clear the virus.
      The way this testing is handled is to maximize risk and over-treatment for the benefit of vested interests…they claim it’s to better protect women, rubbish, it’s to make huge profits.

    • OverItAll says:

      Ro: every doctor has their own guideline. When I was seeing obgyn’s for my severe period cramps, I saw all 20 dr’s in a group. Some said a pap yearly immediately after sex, others said every 3-5 years starting at 21 and most were in between this. But they all insisted on them even if you had a hyst “just because”. And why would they make any improvements when the current highly-inaccurate pap smear brings in so much money ao fast and without much effort?

      Can you think of any way to make so much cash so fast? And they say we’re the insane ones… (probably so the sheep don’t catch on). Please excuse any typos, still getting used to touchscreen

  11. Greg says:

    I live in a small town. We have a PA here that does sports exams on both boys and girls “teenagers”. I was told by a friend that when she was in high school the PA suggested a PAP smear during her sports physical. I am sure he is doing these whenever someone gullible comes in. I strongly suggest mothers be present during these physicals. This guy is doing it for sexual gratification. He comes across as professional but I am so glad my wife has a female doctor. I would never let him exam her.

  12. Kleigh says:

    First of all teenage girls shouls not even be having pap smears acording to the US guide lines. That is over the top for a sports pysical. How ever some of my male class mates told me in order to play ball at are school they were made to have the hurnia exam. One even said that the nurses were all female and that they were “hot”. One of the boys said he injoyed that. genital exams seem a little over the top to play high school sports. My female cusin told me they asked her when her last period was during her cheerleading pyhiscal. they never did a gyn exam thank goodness.

    • Alex says:

      Not to mention the dangers for a female of that age. Inaccuracies are higher, too- which leads to other things (and then there’s numerous problems with those- including excruciating pain, apparently). Plus, since there’s other, more effective, ways of detecting a disease that’s massively rare to begin with.

      The hernia check is problematic (not as severe as imposed internal exams, of course) & doesn’t make sense (seeing as it could always happen after this test, anyway). I’ve heard of different things with that (it being something that would be noticeable for someone that had one, it doesn’t work well, it might work but is superfluous- since if it was causing a problem there’d be one to complain of). The doctors shouldn’t be asking about her period at her cheerleading physical. It might very well accumulutate information, but it’s not related information (them asking doesn’t make it pertain to the situation). They attach riders to things “saying this is a part of that” and a deviation from that they see as an issue. There are something that may very well test for something, but that something is superfluous. Take dialation in pregnancy, for instance (it tells the degree of dialation, but that doesn’t tell if the kid’s coming soon- also, any number of procedures can introduce bacteria causing hospital-borne infections as well as whatever other attendant problems).

      It’s like an OCD thing where something deviates from a plan or is different from the image they had in mind & they have a “does not compute” moment. It turns into a huge problem for their pattern to be broken- doesn’t matter if that pattern is a means of failure. Also, their self-esteem becomes something at stake (they figure they’re so great because of what they know & if what they know is useless- that kicks the chair out from under their ego). Their reasoning that their ouput outmatches someone else’s (they have an “A grade” which outmatches someone else’s “B grade”) is tied to that, as well. Medical quality is determined by patient satisfaction, not academic value (but they figure their coming to a conclusion will actually reform the situation- a “reality is what I say it is” kind of thinking).

  13. Elaine says:

    Doctors who cannot tell the difference between tootsies and coochies:

    * Should not be holding a medical license OR degree
    * May be visually or sensory impaired
    * May an extraterrestrial lifeform from a species where such things are common

    Whichever of these it might me, I want them nowhere near my body.

Speak your mind

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s