Re: just wondering
From: e (anonymous@obgyn.net)
Mon, 29 Jun 1998 10:45:04 -0500 (CDT)
Okay, so I understand what you're saying. The information may be in the
public domain but you won't go looking for it unless you know you need
it.
I guess I want to know what information I should be teaching my
daughter. I can teach her about monogamy and the dangers of
promiscuity. That's stuff that's been passed on for many generations. I
didn't know about the damage caused by childbirth until after I gave
birth. All I ever heard was if you're healthy and strong you'll bounce
back no problem. Until I had a rectocele I never heard that heavy
lifting is bad. I was under the impression that if you could lift
without pain you weren't lifting too much. I can pass on to my daughter
what information I have but I came across it the hard way. Is there a
good book that describes the good, bad and ugly as opposed to only the
good and mildly bothersome?
At Sun, 28 Jun 1998, William D. McIntosh, MD wrote:
>
>At Sun, 28 Jun 1998, eliz wrote:
>>
>>I saw a tv news doc say that cervical cancer was definitely being
>>classified as a sexually transmitted disease, that there was no genetic
>>correlation for predisposition. The evidence was given as a study
>>showing that life-long nuns did not get cervical cancer. I'm disturbed
>>by this being catagorized as a sexually transmitted disease with the
>>negative connotation therein. However, I have another reason for
>>posting. Do life-long nuns come down with any of the other disorders
>>that afflict women: cystocele? rectocele? enterocele? uterine prolapse?
>>fibroid tumors? ovarian cancer? endometriosis?
>>
>>I'm certainly not suggesting that all reproductive disorders be
>>classified as sexually transmitted diseases. However, if some or all of
>>these disorders are realted to sexual activity perhaps we should be
>>teaching our daughters the dangers and how to try to avoid problems. If
>>Kegals are so good for pelvic muscle support and the prevention of
>>incontinence why aren't girls taught about them early on? Is there even
>>very much research into preventative or early intervention medicine?
>>There are a great many issues in women's health I was never aware of
>>until I started having problems.
>
>An apparent prerequisite for cervical cancer is the Human Papilloma
>Virus (HPV), a sexually transmitted disease. It is almost ubiquitous in
>the sexually experienced adult population, thus explaining why nuns are
>relatively immune. The virus remains in the body forever, thus
>establishing an ongoing risk for cervical cancer. Symptoms of the virus
>are rare, so Pap smears are performed routinely to screen for the
>effects of the virus.
>Most of the problems I see in daily practice have a sexual component. I
>am a physician specializing in women's reproductive health. "Female"
>and "sex" are the common threads of my professional life. Starting with
>childbirth and moving on through the tissue damage that results from
>childbirth, to blocking pregnancy, to pain from sex, to loss of libido,
>all have sex as the common theme. From one perspective, all of OB/GYN
>is management of sexually related conditions.
>There is vastly more research into preventative medicine than there is
>committment to adhere to the results of that research in the American
>population. Are the 5000 deaths each year that are the result of
>cervical cancer really the grain of rice that tips the scale in favor of
>practicing safe sex, or more effectively, mutual monogamy for life? Are
>the effects of smoking on fertility the deciding factor in not smoking?
>We know much, hypothesize more, and are wrong about many things. The
>data is all in the public domain.
>
>--
>William D. McIntosh, MD
>
>This is not intended to replace consultation and examination
>by a medical practitioner.
>
![[ Women's Health Forum ]](http://www.obgyn.net/images_women/wh-forum.gif)