Miss Lida Sarafraz1
1University Of Utah
Many medical devices in current use have been approved based on clinical data from trials that excluded women in the past. Consequently, since these devices are tested only on male research participants, women experience worse outcomes after using them. For example, women are more likely to experience chronic pain or sexual dysfunction after Total Hip Replacement (THR) therapy than men.
Feminist philosopher, Katrina Hutchison (2019) argues that because of gender bias in medical implant design, gender differences are largely ignored in standards, and there is no evidence of any effort to address this. Women patients—whose experiences must be factored into design and processes to prevent harm—are isolated from the other players, such as scientists, partly by medical hierarchies and their lowly position within these.
In this paper, I develop Katrina Hutchison’s analysis of this disparity by adding research/treatment distinction and gendered ageism as important factors to analyze. These two additions are important because ignoring them may hinder the path to finding effective remedies to address the worse outcomes for older women in implant design who are the main users of artificial joints among women patients. I argue the research/treatment distinction in evaluating gender bias is important because the type and degree of harm in these two contexts are different. I also argue gender bias is not the only bias in implant design, but gendered ageism is the main issue to address.
Biography:
I am a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Utah working on the underrepresentation of women in clinical trials. As a minority woman, I am working on making medical humanities and bioethics literature more focused on minority issues.