Slashdot Mirror
Women Die More From Heart Attacks Than Men -- Unless the ER Doc Is Female (scientificamerican.com)
Women who suffer from heart attacks may be at a higher risk of death in the emergency room if they see a male physician rather than a female one, a new study suggests. The study doesn't jump to conclusions, but doctors and cardiologists have a few theories. There could be a systematic bias where male physicians are not listening to female patients' complaints as readily as [those of] a man, or there could be a bias that favors men in the medical literature, leading to misdiagnoses in women. It may also be that female doctors do a better job than their male counterparts. "In the new study everyone was more likely to survive if they saw a female physician, and a study published last year [...] indicated all patients of female physicians had lower mortality and hospital readmission rates," reports Scientific American. From the report: Heart disease is the number-one killer of both men and women, but the latter are significantly less likely to survive heart attacks. According to 2016 American Heart Association statement, 26 percent of women will die within a year of a heart attack compared with just 19 percent of men. The gap widens with time: By five years after a heart attack almost half of women die, compared with 36 percent of men. The reason has eluded researchers for years, but the authors of the new study point to the disparity in male and female representation in emergency doctors as a potential source of answers. The researchers analyzed a Florida Agency for Health Care Administration database containing every heart attack case from every ER in the state (excluding Veterans Affairs hospitals) between 1991 and 2010.
The researchers divided 500,000-plus cases into four categories: male doctors treating men; male doctors treating women; female doctors treating men; and female doctors treating women. "All of those are statistically indistinguishable except for male doctor -- female patient," says Brad Greenwood, an author on the study and a data scientist at the University of Minnesota. If a heart attack patient is a woman and her emergency physician is a man, he says, her risk of death suddenly rises by about 12 percent. Put another way, a heart attack patient dies in the ER about 11.9 percent of the time overall -- but the research team found women with heart attacks will die about 12.4 percent of the time if their cases are handled by male doctors. This means approximately one out of every 66 women with heart attacks dies in the emergency room if she sees a male doctor rather than a female one.
The researchers divided 500,000-plus cases into four categories: male doctors treating men; male doctors treating women; female doctors treating men; and female doctors treating women. "All of those are statistically indistinguishable except for male doctor -- female patient," says Brad Greenwood, an author on the study and a data scientist at the University of Minnesota. If a heart attack patient is a woman and her emergency physician is a man, he says, her risk of death suddenly rises by about 12 percent. Put another way, a heart attack patient dies in the ER about 11.9 percent of the time overall -- but the research team found women with heart attacks will die about 12.4 percent of the time if their cases are handled by male doctors. This means approximately one out of every 66 women with heart attacks dies in the emergency room if she sees a male doctor rather than a female one.
From the abstract: "We further find that male physicians with more exposure to female patients and female physicians have more success treating female patients."
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/31/1800097115
Just seems like people with more experience in treating females are better at treating females.
No? The TFS sure as hell does!
I tend to rant.
(from the referenced paper in the article, page 918 left side):
Women are often older when they present with their first AMI, at an average age of 71.8 years compared with 65 years for men.
(with AMI meaning Acute Myocardial Infarction)
Now, could it be that the shorter long term survival rate has more to do with age than gender?
Also, there is a very interesting graph on the previous page depicting the AMI-related deaths for both sexes, with female deaths due to cardiovascular faults being in sharp decline since 2000. So either something happened around that time that made women less susceptible to dying from a heart attack, or something else took over as the big lady killer.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It could also be the female cardiologists are less experienced, less senior or less competent. Therefore they are only assigned the easier, more routine, lower-risk cases.
If this was the case, then the disparity would show up for both male and female patients. Yet according to TFA, the survival difference for male patients was not statistically significant.
They already did, some time ago.
Google "BBC health gap" and prepare to be horrified (it's a series of articles written by some dickless man calling himself a doctor) . Somehow even though women live 8 yrs longer, are healthier, die less at work (93:7), die less from suicide (3:1) there is a health gap, a systematic war against women of which the whole medical profession (where women are the majority) is complicit.
The best I have ever heard is that women are smaller and weaker than men because we systematically and deliberately underfed them throughout the whole of history. I wonder why female chimps are smaller and weaker (and just about every other animal); that patriarchy goes a long way it seems!
BTW, according to Wikipedia there was a society that gave poorer food to women and in this society women did live shorter than men. Guess which society was that? Athens. The city state, that is. Yes, the fathers of democracy. The Spartans had better eugenics program --> they did not allow teenage pregnancy which was an amazing insight for those times. They'd also allow, in exceptional cases, polygamy in light of the numerous young widows among the warrior class. But then, there were other issues in their society (e.g. slavery) that were not so great...
It is absolutely ridiculous that the most privilege group of people in history (white western women) who are surrounded by endless invisible walls of protection and comfort (provided mostly my men), who rubbed their backsides on the banks of the best universities never seen a day of hardship, while their peers in the rest of the world were working full time jobs (sometimes more than one) and rising a family (just ask what my mother or grandmothers think about those screeching harpies...be prepared for the c-word to be mentioned repeatedly) are now declaring the world to the most horrific of places, their position to be one of victimhood and oppression while opening the doors (and legs) to cultures that are decades behind the West in terms of equal treatment of different people (who are the greatest homophobes in the world - Africans and Arabs! The stories I have heard from white, gay South Africans...wow man, just wow!).
In my worst nightmares I could not imagine that the West would come to this. All those years I am here (17), among you, I was worried about the rednecks, the ultra-religious creationists, the "foking banksters", the 1%, the mafia that is the energy industry (oil, gas), food, medicine, cosmetics and so on....anyone can see my /. post history.....and now my own people (the left, don't blame me, I can't help it, no way you can be conservative with extrovert and openness score in the 95 percentile range) betrayed me and became anti-science, anti-free speech, anti-reality for fuck's sake! I am ashamed of myself, that I missed that transformation for many years (yes, I did have horrendous personal problems so I let everything else slide, including political analysis, but still....) and repeated for a while the bulshit without checking the facts...well we live and learn I guess.
I am well aware where the division in groups and the oppressed-oppressor narrative lead. So, westerners, pick your ultimate destiny --> fascist labor camps, or communist Gulags. You don't have a third option since the silent majority happily/docilly allowed the nutters from both sides to hijack the political discourse, the mainstream media, the educational system and so on...now 2 generations have been screwed already. We will harvest what we sow. Good luck!
I'm not sure that's the cause. The study also shows that male doctors with more experience with female patients have a better outcome than male doctors with less experience with female patients.
There are things women and men might lie about or unconsciously "adjust" in different ways. If you had a non-obese patient, the male might claim he weighs a little more than he does, and a woman might claim she weighs a little less than she does. But in a hospital setting, I'm sure they do actual measurements instead of relying on the patient.
But you may have touched upon a potential factor here: communication. It may be, for example, that female patients are less good at volunteering the important information, and that female doctors and male doctors with experience treating females have less problems communicating in a way where the female patient tells important things. Which may include things that a female patient may be uncomfortable disclosing to a young male, like also having an UTI, yeast infection, irregular periods or copper implant. And a younger male doctor may be more uncomfortable with and less good at getting this information, perhaps expecting "any other problems?" to cover that. A doctor that's experienced with either being a women or treating female patients may just be better at asking direct questions.
That's not what it says.
It says "In the new study everyone was more likely to survive if they saw a female physician"
Which means that men seeing female doctors survive better too. Sometimes you have to be careful with reports, because male doctors kill more women is true. but male doctors kill more of everyone is MORE true.
So - basically the study is implying that there is something about male doctos that increases mortality.
The corollary to "those in power are men" is that "those destitute and homeless" are typically men too.
And the latter group is far larger.
What a fucking ramble. Does it ever get tiring jacking yourself off and ranting and raving about the elite liberal feminist boogeywomen? Plenty of men have never seen a real day of hardship. You know who those are? Most of you on \. or Reddit or really anyone who works in the IT sector and never grew up doing manual labor. Being a man doesn't magically make your life harder or more oppressed. I'm a white young male and maybe I'm just that fucking special, but I've never been held down by the "liberal feminist" society. My wife has a harder job than I and barely makes more as a manager than I do as the second most junior rank IT engineer. I work less hours, don't work weekends, don't work holidays, don't have patients who grab my privates, tits, or ass, and I'm not expected to take a punch to the face or risk termination for self defense. I think you're pissed off about something that isn't actually an issue and frankly if someone makes you that mad, don't listen. As far as your fears of the future - smarter idiots than you have squawked this nonsense for the last 200-some years and it's always just around the corner. Those of us who follow history see the same shit, different day. You're not special. You're wrong in literally every part of your argument and you probably just need to get fucked, but no woman in her right mind is going to touch someone who talks like you do. You condescending, small brained, ignorant retard.
Your wife should have gotten a skill set that actually pays. That is her fault, not societies. I work in a fortune 100 company. Guess what numb nuts. The women make just as much, and hold as many positions or more then men. They don't have it any worse.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
200% Wrong.
It's Republicans of today who are fundamentally distorting the Bill of Rights with their kooky concepts like how their "religious liberty" means they can deny others access to prescription medicines, how they can compel people to participate in their feigned displays of "patriotism" and of course, how they can be the victim when they aren't allowed to oppress and deny the civil rights of others.
Sad to see their party corrupted by the malignant influence that used to control the Democrats.
SAD!!
Republicans don't deny access to healthcare; they just don't want to pay for others having a procedure they disagree with. I disagree with elective abortion, so I don't want my tax dollars to pay for you to have an elective abortion. I am against making abortion illegal because there are some situations I agree with abortion (such as a pregnancy which resulted from rape, or cases where either the mother's or fetus' life is in severe jeopardy). The Catholic Church is against contraceptives, so they don't want to pay from health insurance which pays for contraceptives, but that doesn't stop their employees from buying supplemental insurance or paying retail for contraceptives.
The country is so divided that you parrot your party's talking points without determining the validity of the claims.