Twenty-some years ago the mavens of medical misfortune sounded their
shrill alarm.
Hillary Clinton lashed out because of the "appalling degree to which
women were routinely excluded from major clinical trials of most
illnesses." Marcia Angell, then editor of the august New England Journal
of Medicine, pronounced this lament: "There is little doubt that women
have been systematically excluded as subjects for study." And Dr. Vivian
Pinn of the National Institutes of Health wrote, "The exclusion of some
women from clinical studies may sometimes be valid, but not all women
all the time."
Of course no one had ever bothered to actually compile the numbers, so
they were unable to refute the claim. But everyone knew the
male-dominated medical research establishment was interested only in
prostates and male-pattern baldness, so the ladies' claims rang true.
Now under the political gun, the NIH hastily created its Office for
Women's Health Research. In 1991 president George Bush (the first one)
appointed cardiologist Bernadine Healy as director of NIH and gave her a
mandate to break the patriarchy's stranglehold on medical research.
Feminists skillfully parlayed public outrage into research agendas and
budget allocations. Millions were pumped into breast cancer research,
and by 1992, National Cancer Institute funding for breast cancer reached
$145 million. No one mentioned that the prostate budget that year
barely
topped $31 million.
But skeptics began to doubt the common wisdom. An Institute of Medicine
panel looked into the matter and was forced to admit it "could not nail
down the truth of the perception that women have been under represented"
in medical research.
In 1993 Congress passed a law that required the NIH to track
sex-specific enrollments. Everyone knew the numbers would reveal an
appalling under-representation of members of the fairer sex.
So the following year, red-faced NIH officials had to admit things
weren't so grim after all. Participants in NIH-funded studies were 52%
female, 45% male, with the remainder being unknown.
But no one was going to let facts stand in the way of gender liberation,
so the crusade pressed forward. At latest count, male research
participation had
fallen
to 40%.
Two years ago Dr. S.M. Huang and colleagues at the Food and Drug
Administration published a review, "Evaluation of Drugs in Women:
Regulatory Perspective." Tallying up five separate analyses of
sex-specific participation, they concluded "women have been included in
drug development studies at least since the early 1980s in approximate
proportion to the prevalence of disease in them."
Of course the Sisters of Insincerity knew their ruse would eventually be
exposed, so they set out to consolidate their gains. Before long a
federal bureaucracy devoted to the cause of women's health had sprung
into existence. Those programs would boast a $5 billion budget, four
times more than the money allotted to men's health.
There's a certain irony to all this.
Every year the government publishes a
compendium of health information
that takes the measure of Americans' health.
Leaf through its pages, and you'll see that men are lagging on
practically every measure: death rates, doctor visits, insurance
coverage, and so forth.
At latest count, the lifespan of women was 80.1 years, with men trailing
at 74.8 years. And Black men - their life expectancy is only 69 years.
Whatever happened to the vision of gender equality?
Today, the women's health movement has become a multi-billion dollar
interest group that tap-dances smoothly among feckless bureaucrats,
chivalrous congressmen looking to woo the female vote, groups like the
Society for Women's Health Research lining up to take their cut, and
media types desperate for yet another story to pander to their female
readership.
Women's health has become elevated to a cult-like status, a religious
crusade worthy of Red Dress galas hosted by the First Lady, national
events touting a "Race for the Cure," and a recent front-cover tribute
by US News and World Report.
Being divinely-blessed is good, because then you can enjoy your Marie
Antoinette moments.
Carey Roberts has
been published frequently in the Washington Times, Townhall.com,
LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Intellectual Conservative, and
elsewhere. He is a staff reporter for the New Media Alliance.
