As Chair of the Early Pregnancy Loss Coalition, I was excited to see the announcement in the Federal Budget that miscarriage would receive its own dedicated funding for the first time. I was equally happy to see funding for endometriosis. It's not just because people who experience endometriosis are more likely to miscarry.
Trailblazers like Guardian Australia journalist Gabriel Jackson (author of the seminal book Pain and Prejudice) have brought much-needed attention to misogyny in health. I wish I could do the same with my book about miscarriage, Hard to Bear.
Despite women having markedly different reproductive anatomy and physiology, the default gender in nearly all medical research is male, gender differences in service rebates and pain management, and the medical needs of people with uteruses. This is well documented, to the extent that many are simply ignored. And the evidence is international, and in my opinion, incontrovertible.
But a side effect of a lifetime of underfunding the treatment of women in nearly every aspect of health care is that, over time, the field has become a Hunger Games of funding.
Everyone wants what's best for the issue or organization they're fighting for, but unfortunately, this means enemy lines are drawn across sectors rather than an invitation to cooperation. You may.
This has to end. Looking at the results that the endometriosis and stillbirth lobby has achieved by uniting voices and advocating as a sector, rather than just a few hundred individuals or small organizations, we hope this will help bring about change in the field of miscarriage. I realized that it is essential. They responded with enthusiasm and consideration.
But the concept of cooperation, collaboration, and rooting for each other's victories must be broader than that.
The federal budget announced this week hasn't given us everything we hoped for when it comes to women's health – there are always issues that need to be overlooked – but we want quality, appropriate and appropriate healthcare. I believe we are continuing the existing change of finally recognizing the issues that women face. medical and healthcare. Ged Carney, the Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health and a former nurse, has been a tenacious ally in this regard.
This budget miscarriage announcement provides emergency funding needed to support patients and their families now, including grief support services and the ability to build awareness and education campaigns to break down silence, stigma and taboos. This is what we offer.
In the areas of endometriosis and sexual health, improved rebates for gynecologists would lead to better patient access and ultimately longer appointment times and better, safer care. It will be.
Funding to support customized and flexible midwifery care will benefit all obstetric patients, as well as those who have experienced miscarriage.
The government will spend $3.4 billion to register new drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, including breast cancer drugs, which will reduce the cost of a single treatment from about $100,000 to $31.60. It's planned.
Much-needed funding for the Aboriginal health sector is critical to closing the gap between Aboriginal women and other Australians.
I also believe that funding crisis response medical support is a win for the sector I represent, as people who have experienced family violence are much more likely to experience early miscarriage. Masu. The same goes for people living in poverty or without a place to live. This has been brought into stark relief during the Covid-19 pandemic.
These are all social determinants of the care you receive and the health problems you experience.
Another high risk of miscarriage is sexually transmitted infections and related pelvic inflammatory diseases. For example, chlamydia and gonorrhea can cause scarring, which can increase the risk profile for pregnancy and fertility. Funding in the field of sexual health is important for those working in the field of women's health. The same goes for contraception.
Risk is always cumulative. There are multiple physical and social considerations that impact a person's health and well-being, especially when it comes to reproductive health. Treatment and good medical care must address these intersecting issues. Your profile in medicine is not influenced by any one issue. Most likely there will be some effects. Physicians never (or should not) assume that a patient who comes into the office has a single problem. That might be one thing. It could be two. It might be five. And it could be five separate issues, or a combination that all intersect to create entirely new challenges.
A combination of factors can result in any outcome. This is the core of your risk profile.
That's why one of the challenges in women's health is to tackle operating silos. Women's health is on a Venn diagram, with the patient at the center and too many different issues sitting on top of each other.
I really wish we could put this silo mentality aside, but I'm curious to see if this can be done in the context of the latest 13-year, $1.4 billion budget funding for the Medical Research Future Fund. there is. What research will benefit multiple patient cohorts? What are we missing in terms of basic knowledge gaps in female physiology? Biology? hormone? How will this impact the treatment of various problems?
The Hunger Games over funding will never end. There will always be some level of competition. And sadly, there is always the problem of not getting the funding you want.
But as advocates and as women, we can and must choose to uplift each other and reap the benefits of all sectors standing together for the broader good. It doesn't have to be.
Isabel Oderberg is a journalist, editor, writer, and media professional. She chairs the Early Pregnancy Loss Coalition. Her first book is titled “Hard to Bear: Exploring the Science and Silence of Miscarriage.”
