![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (6)
Share link
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Furl
Reddit
Google"We're asking everyone to wear red that day," said Pam Fisher, public relations and marketing director for Heritage.
"Go Red for Women" is a national movement founded by the American Heart Association to raise awareness of the rising incidences of heart disease and strokes in women.
"Today, our near-term goal is nothing less than a 25 percent reduction in coronary heart disease and stroke risk by the year 2010," states the web site www.goredforwomen.org. "As we work toward that goal, we're working hard to change the perception that heart disease is a 'man's disease.'"
Asking people to wear red on Feb. 6 is only one way the organization raises awareness. By registering with the web site, any civic group, business, church, or even household can receive free downloadable tools that help spread the word. The web site is loaded with valuable information about cardiovascular health, from diet tips to statistics.
Last year, more than 50 major businesses participated in the Go Red for Women campaign, including Schering Plough, Lexus and Geico. On Feb. 1, major cities "went red" by lighting up major landmarks in a red glow, from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Washington Monument.
The American Heart Association is the largest voluntary health organization fighting heart disease, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases, which kill more than 870,000 Americans each year.
"That's a life every 36 seconds," the web site states. "Furthermore, cardiovascular disease claims the lives of approximately 460,000 women every year, causing almost one death per minute."
In 1997, the American Heart Association began a movement when it launched its groundbreaking "Take Wellness To Heart" awareness campaign created by women for women. In February 2004, the association launched Go Red For Women -- extending the effort that began in 1997 -- with a primary goal to educate women that heart disease is their leading cause of death.
The Go Red for Women luncheon is free, but donations will be accepted and forwarded directly to the American Heart Association for Education and research. It's open to the public -- and not just women.
"We've had several men sign up already," said Fisher.
There will be door prizes, as well as informational material about cardiovascular health. Even though the event is free, reservations are needed and must be made by Monday. To make reservations, call Fisher at 685-8390.
IF YOU GO
What: Go Red For Women Luncheon
Where: First Baptist Church
When: Noon, Friday, Feb. 6
Cost: Free, but reservations are required. Call 685-8390
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please
Dr. Bearden and I made reservations for the "Go Red" luncheon. It is on Friday, Feb 6th (not Feb 5th) for those who wish to attend.
Tammy Bearden
Here is what is generally believed by women's health advocates like WomenHeart.org:
"Within one year of a heart attack, 38 percent of women will die compared to 25 percent of men."
"Women are almost twice as likely as men to die after bypass surgery."
"Women are less likely than men to receive beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors or even aspirin after a heart attack."
"Heart disease is more likely to be treated accurately in men than women."
"Heart disease is more likely to strike -- and kill -- more American women than men."
These alarming statistics -- all true -- are repeated over and over by women's advocates and the generally unquestioning media. Hence a gospel:
Women's heart disease is undertreated and therefore deadlier than men's, so women are more in need of campaigns to improve preventative measures and raise awareness of their risk.
But despite the statistics being true, the gospel is false. That's because WomenHeart employs its statistics misleadingly.
Take "Heart disease is more likely to strike -- and kill -- more American women than men." WomenHeart omits why more women die (about 6,400 more1):
At age 64 and above, when both sexes are at their greatest risk of the disease, women outnumber men by roughly five million.
To "prove" women's heart disease is undertreated, WomenHeart says, "Within one year of a heart attack, 38 percent of women will die compared to 25 percent of men," and that after an attack "women are less likely...to receive...even aspirin...."
WomenHeart doesn't say, however, that heart disease typically afflicts women later in life. "Almost three -quarters of women who die of heart attacks," says author Warren Farrell, "are 75 or older; by this time, the average man has been dead for three years." At these ages, women are frailer and less likely to survive an attack. Many may have old-age complications that preclude even aspirin therapy.
Is women's heart disease deadlier? Ponder other statistics that WomenHeart was careful to omit: Heart disease strikes men 10 years sooner than it does women, and kills them at a higher rate at every age.
Before age 65, men are three times more likely than women to die of a heart attack. Even above age 85, when the disease kills more women because they outnumber men, it kills men more frequently.
Regardless, WomenHeart appears to think raising awareness of women's heart-disease risk is more important than raising awareness of both sexes' risk.
Indeed, awareness of men's risk has never been overly high. As late as 2002, for example, when women's risk was becoming more widely publicized, lack of awareness apparently caused Ed Bradley of CBS's "60 Minutes" to receive quintuple bypass surgery almost too late: Evidently neither he nor his initial doctors considered heart disease as inducing the chest pain that Bradley at age 617 had complained about for weeks and which is the most common symptom of a heart attack. If poor awareness could be experienced by this extremely sophisticated man -- a member of the age/race group whose heart-disease death rate is higher than for women ten years older -- it can be, and is, judging by the statistics WomenHeart ignores, experienced by many other men.
Though heart disease hits men harder, the belief that it hits women harder because of undertreatment has spawned countless campaigns to help women only. A few:
"Go Red For Women": It sponsors, among other things, free heart screenings for women.
Heart centers for women: Dozens exist, no doubt with more planned, despite adequate hospital heart care being available to both sexes.
The Heart Truth: The federal government's campaign to raise awareness of heart disease in women, encouraging a public policy of prioritizing attention to women's heart disease over that of men's.
State action: An Illinois bill would require all health insurance polices in the state to cover preventative tests for women's heart disease. (An example of public policy shifting)
National action (another example): The proposed HEART for Women Act11 (S. 573/H.R. 1014): The act "can help millions of women live longer, healthier lives." Never mind this: "At every age," says researcher David Williams of the University of Michigan, "American males have poorer health and a higher risk of mortality than females." American male taxpayers would provide most of the act's funding, because they on average pay more taxes.
Since these campaigns are motivated by WomenHeart-type stats, they ultimately owe their existence to one thing: Women's advocates have capitalized on women's greater longevity and bigger old-age population -- or, perversely, on men's average earlier demise which is due largely to men's earlier and deadlier heart disease! Because the public is unaware of this, the campaigns get away with assisting only the group less at risk and functioning as if every woman were more at risk of heart disease than every man.
Suppose women on average died sooner than men, developed heart disease a decade earlier, and succumbed to the disease more often at every age.
Suppose society ignored this, claimed men's heart disease is undertreated and deadlier, and funded awareness and prevention campaigns for men only.
What might WomenHeart call this? How about mind-numbing sexism on a breath-taking scale?
(See http://www.battlinbog.blog-city.com/wome...
As a female that works in the medical industry, specifically cardiac, women's symptoms and men's symptoms are different and women's have been underated. It has both within the medical field and society that heart disease affected men more than women, which is not true. I will not dispute the statements by Male Matters, but I applaud Heritage Medical Centers support of "Go Red for Women" day and getting the word out that heart disease does affect women and what signs and symptoms to watch for.
mayba obama will fund it.
This should honestly not be a high cost expenditure at all. We should not be dependant on the federal government to get the word out. The medical field is doing what it can to raise awareness, now we just need to make sure everyone knows what symptoms to look for. Men and women have different symptoms, we just need to be aware. Cardiac disease can be treated if caught early, but most often it too late and there is not much the MD's can do, no matter who you are.
I think women's heart attacks are supposed to be "sneakier."
Men in our culture are expected to exert,have high pressure jobs,indulgent lifestyles,etc. that would cause them to be checked for heart disease should they have regular physical examinations.
Women might ignore weakness or shortness of breath or jaw and arm pain while being vigilant concerning lumps in the breast,Pap smears or the health of their loved ones.
Events that remind people of ALL the risks they face (even heart disease for women and breast cancer for men) can save lives and increase our quality of life.
When we improve our lifestyles by eating well,exercising properly,and making regular visits to our doctor,we might very well spare our children some of these diseases before they start accumulating the risk factors we've had in our lives.
Anything we can do to reach people before it's too late is a good thing.
If males are still more vulnerable to serious health problems than females,perhaps there needs to be more done to address their ills while still taking every opportunity to promote wellness among women.