| Dear
Amy,
When I was diagnosed with cervical cancer
two years ago, getting treatment of any kind
in a timely fashion was almost impossible--I
went through three doctors before I found one
who seemed to care at all about my survival
past the next five years.
There was a definite discrepancy in treatments
for women of childbearing age and women who had
no children versus women who had children already
or were post-menopausal. Women of childbearing
age, or who had no children (such as myself)
are given extremely minimal treatment (loop excision,
conization, etc.) compared to women who already
have children or are post-menopausal (who
receive hysterectomies and lymph node excisions, along
with radiation). The reason I was given for this
lack of health care was: I might someday wish
to have babies, even though my husband has a
vasectomy and we have agreed to adopt children
if we ever decide we want any.
My last gynecologist referred me to this study
http://www.uihealthcare.com/news/news/2004/05/17guidelines.html
and a couple of similar studies that showed that
treatment of any kind can often mean a difficult
pregnancy, require circlage, and possibly end
in miscarriage or stillbirth. My response to
him was: SO WHAT? I'd rather be alive for the
next twenty or thirty years than dead next year!
I've discussed my decision not to bear children
with my husband, and he agrees with it, so why
should anyone withhold treatment from me for
a potentially lethal disease? The only thing
I was told is that "you might change your
mind."
I find it truly offensive that young women (I
was 26 at the time) are not considered able to
make such an important decision, even when it
involves their own personal life or death. My
question is, do you think that this is due to
the pro-natalist slant of our culture, that women
are only worth their baby-making capacity, or
that it is just due to the age-old stereotypes
of women being nonintellectual creatures?
Lora
|
