A small but significant portion of medical studies exclude gays from participating, sometimes without an apparent scientific reason, several cancer researchers say.
Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comGays often excluded from medical studies
Seeded on Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:37 PM EDT (msnbc.com)
— Filed under: health, cancer, corporate-news, products-and-services, diseases-and-conditions, medical-research, clinical-trials
Leave a Comment:
Egleston must like pickles !!
1 deleted, derail from GLCSR about 'how the law will deal with a straight man who smacks a fag'. Not on-topic, you should lose the slur, too. You're suspended for a day for violating #5 of the Code of Honor.
2 deleted, showing off why they're suspended.
Interesting story.
Poor pitiful haters...time to grow up and join the world of adults.
Why don't you move to Iran and proclaim your gayness and paganess there? I'm sure you'd be warmly welcomed.
Agreed pat on Gayness...butkeep your religious drivel to yourself please.
Most research studies exclude women in general so they shouldn't feel as if they are being singled out. Look at it as being part of a club. At least when the studies are done the research is applicable to all men and not just straight ones. Much research limited to only males is not applicable to women.
i give you a reason...it is a weird lifestyle to us "normal" people...normal meaning the average human being living their lives as men and women....there is no "confusion" or rhetorical explanations needed to understand it...it is simple...no culture can survive without morals that promote the species, not redefining nature to fit your desire to explain your feelings and attractions....there is definitely something different about gays and straights....
maybe they want a sample of the human population that is consistant, with the fewest possible variations in the test subjects...
there are all sorts of studies that could be done...actually do a study to help determine if there is differences in human sexuality that affect us physically and how we respond to drugs, etc...the mind can influence healing and the different mindsets could be an unaccounted variable...its crazy
quit whining and singling your group out for special consideration/compensation simply because you are different...try fitting in and quit whining
i cant wait for the abuse coming my way...lol...just an opinion just like yours...
I'm not so sure the lifestyle is any weirder than the lifestyle of most Christians where they take bread and water and pretend it's the body and blood of Jesus and eat it. Seems a bit cannibalistic to me.
I'm not so sure it's any stranger than hiring a prostitute or getting off over nudie magazines. Or the S&M stuff, sex toys, swingers and other funky stuff that happens behind the doors of straight people.
There's a lot of pot calling the kettle black.
Thats not a fair comparison-gays dont have a choice in their sexual orientation whereas religious folks do have choice over their belief in virgin births, talking snakes, ascending to heaven on a winged horse, and other such nonsense.
I find it funny that it is always white heterosexual men that never see things as discrimination. Why would they?
It's probably to point out how all gay homosexual men cry as the victim of discrimination.
Nice try at trolling.
It's no different from a guy who likes small breasts instead of large ones...sexual preference...get a life people...being gay has no bearing on this.
Your wife must be Asian.
Bahahaha Pat.
I don't see this as gay or hetero issue. why should being gay effect how medicine or treatments work. Race doesn't. Are people being excluded because of sexual preference? Then it just may not be a variable that the medical community needs to figure into their studies.
Anatomy is anatomy. Noone should be excluded but is this a factor that would figure into a study? I mean is the medical proffession purposely excluding gay men. That would not be right, but if its a situation where they arent asking one way or anoter then what differance does it make.
HAHAHAHA!!!!! there goes all the little fairys whining and crying , damn what little bit%^es !!!!!!
ya know i see there are a bunch of conservative republicans on here. And its a fact if youd like to become a f**king moron and part of the minority of america, then become a conservative republican today. Conservative republicans have one or more of the following qualities and compenents- anti drugs, racist, homophobic, a gun lover, hatred for president obama, unedcated and /or severally misled, from the south, elderly, religious fanatic, against the new health care bill that will b passed on saturday, self centered and stuck up, supportive of the teapartiers (excuse me teabbagers), obcessed with the constitution. but luckily i am 35 years old and the majoirty of the youth of america 18-35 is liberal, pro gay, pro pot, pro choice, smart and educated, accepting of others.......and our future. Its a fact! conservative republicans become more and more in the minority with every year that passes by! amen!
I was with you till "smart and educated" popped up.
Looks like we found another conservative republican.
why would one's sexual preference matter?
Sounds like the media, along with the gay community, is trying to create a issue.
Women are also routinely excluded from medical studies too. It has a direct affect on the quality of medical care provided. To exclude anyone without a scientific reason is to call the validity of the study into question.
Im not white but dont see any reason that this would be a discrimination issue.
The point is, there is no scientific reason for homosexuals to be excluded from the medical studies mentioned in the article. The validitiy of these studies are in question as long as the American Medical Association excludes individuals, such as women and homosexuals, without scientific cause.
So a gay person included in a reproduction study....is something you approve of...
How can researchers even begin to classify "any single group" of people based on how they choose to pretend to have intercourse... ?
The idea that "any group" should or could be classified on such a basis is one of the most ridiculous things ever considered for discussion in the entire history of civilization.
How or why anyone feels some extremely odd need to express and/or identify themselves, based on how they choose to pretend to engage in intercourse is sad. Whatever heterophobic tendencies were developed in their early years to help them choose that lifestyle is absolutely none of anyone else's business, but at the same time, certainly is completely undeserving of being "singled out" or given any "unique classification" based on their "highly personal heterophobic feelings".
Otherwise, researchers would need to also classify people based on hundreds of other "personal idiosychracies, phobias, beliefs, etc., ets."
Classifying any of these "odd groups" may have some role in a psychological or psychiatric study of Human Behavior... but otherwise, there simply is no point at all.
Maybe we should ask about all the children who "play pretend" everyday? Are they being discriminated aginst too? After all, don't kids have a right to their own "fantasies?" Who is society to "prejudge these innocent young children?"
what's wrong with "pretending to be a Policeman or a Fireman or a Nurse or a Doctor or a Soldier?" Just because some people want to "pretend to have intercourse" I guess somehow they're being discriminated against?
What about people who have lots of wives? What about "pedophiles???" What about those freaks who belong to NAMBLA? They have a National organization? Mr. NAMBLA Kevin Jennings actually works for Obama in the WH... or are people "discriminating against NAMBLA too?
The problem with that whole "I'm being discriminated because of my sexual PREFERENCE sob story" is that "lots of other ODD groups are being ignored too, but we don't hear any UProar from them?"
Where is it all supposed to END? (Oops sorry about that "end" comment... no offense intended :)
Peace
The guy that noticed must be gay! Anyone else wouldn't give a rats ...
What the hell does this closing statement have to do with the article?
I'll give you that it may negate 4% of the total. But the real question is, is 4% statistically significant? I'm not talking about gays being insignificant, I'm talking about the errors in the total of sampling even including them.
Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill... here is the link to the New England Journal of Medicine article
Ok some quick excerpts ---
ClinicalTrials.gov database contains detailed information on more than 80,000 clinical trials
Wow, big database ---
We found that when we performed searches using the terms "couples," "erectile dysfunction," and "hypoactive" (related to hypoactive sexual disorder), we identified 243 studies, of which 37 (15%) had explicit exclusionary language
Ok so out of a database of 80,000 plus studies, they took 243 studies to closely examine. BTW 243 is a .3% of the database. So based on .3% of the database where they were specifically looking for certain studies were they made up the search criteria they came up with 37 that had exclusions, so just for reference 37 is .046% of 80,000.
My point is if you are going to really research this, you randomly select a very large chunk of the database (20%) and you look for exclusions in those studies. By trying to narrow down the search and basically hand pick the studies you want to look at you can easily spin the numbers the way you want them.
Now there are plenty of reasons you were exclude a certain group of persons from a study. Take this study for example - Health-Related Quality of Life in Gay Men With Localized Prostate Cancer
Now to be part of this study you have to be a gay man, because that's specifically what the study is about. Now there is no reason why there couldn't be a similar study just about straight men, or lesbian women, or straight women.
Here is another one Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) Prevention for Homeless at Risk .
What.. since I have a home I can't be in this study!!! OMG COMPLETE Disrespect for us employed persons with homes... /sarcasm. Please note the study also requires -
Yea so, until these doctors and AP reporter who are just trying to make news do a REAL study using a realistic slice of the database and at random without trying to skew the results, then this "news" item is nothing more then an attempt to stir the pot.
Also forgot to mention that the writer of the article might want to look up the definition for the word "OFTEN" ... Her title "Gays OFTEN excluded from medical studies" seems like a tad bit of a lie when all the study showed was that 15% of their hand picked studies excluded gays, something tells me that 15% is not even close to "many times or frequently as" the definition of often proclaims.
Sometimes, Gays and Lesbians seem to report instances of various diseases in significantly different percentages than heterosexual people. We don't know why, because there is a poverty of research. We might better understand and treat disease in all people if we also understand the degree of influence of homosexuality, be it from biologic, environmental or social factors. We at the national Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender cancer survivor support and advocacy nonprofit, Out With Cancer, ask for identification, inclusion and analysis of Gay and Lesbian people in all clinical trials, where sexual identify and sexual gender exclusion are irrelevant to the study question.
We are all fighting disease, together. It is only right, just and helpful to include all people, where we might better understand how to live life healthier and happier.
Darryl Mitteldorf, LCSW
Executive Director
The LGBT Cancer Project - Out With Cancer
http://www.lgbtcancer.org
The project you represent is honorable in nature and as you stated LGBT tend to have different reporting instances of various medical conditions, which is a very viable reason to exclude them from certain studies.
Now most of the studies should not have exclusions, and the research presented (though very poorly done) shows that most (85%) of the studies did not exclude the LGBT community. But there are issues that need exclusions to better refine test results and find root causes for medical conditions. The examples I gave such as the Prostate study is looking for very specific information on how the quality of life of gay men is affect by localised prostate cancer so that the medical community can create a treatment program that better addresses their issues.
Just from reading about the study it seems clear to me that the effects on the quality of life for gay men compared to straight men is different for this type of cancer, so having specific studies for each sexuality is more then justifiable. I am sure that there has been a similar or will be a similar study concerning this that is targeted just at heterosexual males, now in the logic of the AP reporter and some of the responders to this seed this would be discrimination by having a heterosexual only style study but if you really apply sound logic to it, its not discrimination its what is needed to provide quality medical care to the population.
1 fix doesn't cure everyone all the time, so you need to separate people into groups and study those group individually in order to develop treatment plans that will work for each group. Working down that logic line its not only obvious that there is a need for exclusions in studies but if there were no studies with exclusions that something would be wrong.