The tide is turning!

The tide is turning!

“I am still hoping to hear more about women who are past it all because they said no. It would be comforting to know there are women out there who had the same horrible symptoms, a big fat confused uterus, lived with  it, resisted hysterectomy and are now through menopause and happy that they persevered.”

Women who were told they need a hysterectomy have expressed to HERS a strong desire and need to hear from other women who are/or were determined not to have their uterus and ovaries removed. They need your support. They are fighting pressure from gynecologists, and often well meaning family and friends, to undergo the surgery.

They want to hear from other women who are going through this now, and others whose health problems eventually resolved, either with treatment or just waiting it out until their symptoms subsided.

What gives women the knowledge and power to fight against having their female organs removed? It is the collective experience of vast numbers of hysterectomized women who are sounding the alarm for intact women. These women reveal how they were bullied or ensnared into the operating room, and how the damaging effects of hysterectomy ruined their health, their sex life, their relationships and their careers. The responsibility lies with the doctor to give women correct, factual and complete information on the consequences of hysterectomy and castration. A law requiring doctors to give women HERS female anatomy video, is necessary for informed consent. 

Hysterectomized women want "intact" women to know that they, too, were smart, savvy, asked good questions and did not blindly or blithely agree to surgery. The vast majority of hysterectomies are performed on women who agreed only to exploratory surgery, or to conservative surgery such as removal of a fibroid or an ovarian cyst. Virtually all hysterectomies are performed without the information required for informed consent. 


Hysterectomized women want you to understand that your good questions may be responded to with untruths or outright lies. They share with you their most private, intimate losses caused by the removal of their female organs.  They want you to know that it could be you, that your good questions and research may not protect you from maltreatment. There is no treatment which is able to restore, replace or compensate for the functions of the missing organs. 

Please share your fight to keep your female organs. Women desperately want and need to hear from others who prevailed, who remained intact, and to know that she is not the only one determined to keep her female organs!

Elizabeth Taylor was also one in three women

   

Elizabeth Taylor died Wednesday, March 23, 2011. The media remains focused on her legendary life, but Elizabeth Taylor was also 1 out of 3 women who was hysterectomized, and 1 out of 3 women who died from heart disease. Women who undergo hysterectomy before the age of 50 have a 3X greater incidence of heart disease than women who do not undergo hysterectomy. Heart disease is the number one cause of death among women in the U.S. (CDC, Heart Disease Facts and Statistics, 2008).

An extraordinary, talented actress, Taylor was best known for her hot, steamy sexy roles in films like Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, Suddenly Last Summer and Cleopatra. It is notable the list of “Key films in the career of Elizabeth Taylor” published by Reuters today ended with two films, “The Taming of the Shrew” and “Reflections in a Golden Eye”, both released in 1967, one year before she underwent a hysterectomy. Taylor continued to be headline news long after her steamy roles ended, which was soon after her hysterectomy in 1968.

Elizabeth Taylor had a back problem due to an accident when she was a child. The back problems she suffered with became more prominently referred to after the hysterectomy. It is not surprising since back pain is reported as one of the most common problems women experience after hysterectomy. Taylor also developed many of the other problems known to be caused by the surgery, including the need for three hip replacements.

The long, passionate love affair between Taylor and Richard Burton ended in divorce two years after the surgery. The loss of sexual feeling commonly experienced by hysterectomized women might, in part, explain why their marriage ended. They remarried, and again it ended in divorce. Not long after the surgery it was often reported that she was addicted to drugs, alcohol, and physically unable to work.

Taylor died this week, and her fame will follow her beyond the pale. We will never know what this iconic figures career and life might have been if she had not been hysterectomized at age 36. She was extraordinary, but she was also an ordinary woman who experienced great difficulties in a very public way.

It was as if after Elizabeth Taylor’s hysterectomy life was frozen, like watching a film that suddenly hangs on one frame.

HERS 2010 Hysterectomy Conference: an extraordinary day

On April 24th, 2010 an unusual meeting took place. The HERS Hysterectomy Conference was held in New York. Educators and advocates gathered to discuss the alternatives to and consequences of hysterectomy and to arm women with information.

The Keynote Speaker, Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney(NY), a strong advocate for women’s rights, civil rights and human rights, showed unprecedented legislative support for HERS work to educate the public about the consequences of hysterectomy and our determination that women must be armed with this information before being told to sign a hysterectomy consent form. She noted that despite numerous studies, as early as 1948, which reported the high percentage of medically unwarranted hysterectomies being performed, medical practice has yet to change. “We are still experiencing an epidemic of hysterectomies,” she said, “Where is the outrage?”

Sybil Shainwald focuses her litigation practice on women’s health issues. In her talk, “The Medicalization of Women,” she explored the economic motivation to perform unwarranted surgery. “According to the western model, pre-menstrual syndrome is a disease, menopause is a disease, pregnancy is a disease, childbirth is a disease. From this model I reached the conclusion that being a woman is a disease!”

We had the rare experience of listening to a practicing gynecologist, Mitchell Levine, as he said that “hysterectomy is never ever needed for fibroids." Even more astonishing was hearing a gynecologist acknowledge, “…if you listen to women you get a sense of just how devastating this can be. Our arrogance in saying if we just take out this thing and you’ll be fine, it’s not that simple, it’s too sacred it’s too beautiful, it’s too complex to just go in there and just take things out.” It was an exceptional experience to have a gynecologist who truly cares about what is being done to women who sincerely wants to educate the public about the functions of the female organs and their critical importance to a woman’s health and well-being her entire life.

A panel of four women discussed their experiences with hysterectomies done by different doctors, in different circumstances, in different parts of the world, with the same outcomes. It is a tremendous act of courage for private people to reveal publicly their most personal experiences. They come together with the common goal to inform other women about the true consequences of hysterectomy and castration. They want women to be armed with the information needed if they are told a hysterectomy is “necessary”, and to spread the word so that what was done to them will not be done to the next generation. These are the voices of experience:

     • Jen Bandes, hysterectomized and castrated at 19 years old. “What more could I have asked for, it   seemed liked a miracle solution, and a miracle surgery, or so it was presented to me.”

     • Tawanda Queen, an IT professional. “The doctor eyed me carefully when I inquired as to why hysterectomy was mentioned on the consent form, was I in danger of having one? She said “No” and proceeded to remove her female organs.

     • Nicole Choate, an RN for sixteen years. “My uterus had ruptured and nobody could give me a reason why. There are several possible reasons, maybe the Cervidil, and I was on a Pitocin drip.”

     • Xiomara Calle, business owner. “He said I had fibroids, many fibroids, and I needed to have surgery. This is my doctor of almost 30 years.” She thought she could trust him.

     • Sylvia Gill, living a full, vibrant life in Broxburn, UK, “There was nothing untoward inside, so everything looked okay? She nodded yes.” Her excised uterus and ovaries had been normal.

Indiana State Representative Bruce Borders is a fearless fighter for Hysterectomy Video Informed Consent. When Indiana legislators chose to hear testimony about puppy mills over the most important human rights issue ever to come before them, Rep. Borders challenged that they cared more about their pets than their own wives, mothers, sisters and daughters. The hearing on hysterectomy consent was reinstated. A gynecologist said to Rep. Borders and his wife Lola, just before her surgery, “Don’t worry, we’re taking away the cradle but the playpen will be as good as new”.

Genevieve Carminati, English Professor, Coordinator Women’s Studies Program and writer. When asked to use one word that is important to women to write about in a book to be given to legislators, she chose Uterus. "There are few words so distinctly related to woman. Yet we rarely use it unless we are describing something medical or an illness. It is not an attractive word, certainly not in the way it sounds, almost like a hawk, or something caustic, or a demand U TER US. It does not describe in the lilting way vagina does something precious, something lovely, something that is easy to claim. But the uterus is a vital organ, vital to the race. It’s the room that forms us all and nurtures our gestation, and it is vital to our being as women. To our quality of life, providing a center for so much of who and what we are.”

Robert E. Myers, Senior Trial Attorney and Medical Malpractice lawyer, “When you seek out an attorney for representation, an attorney is not a medical specialist. If you go to an attorney to talk about a possible medical negligence case, do all the research you can do about the medicine yourself. Write a chronology of what happened to you so the person who is a non-doctor can understand what happened to you…it’s not just the wrongful removal of an organ, it’s also how it affects the rest of your life. It’s difficult to just tell somebody – you’re walking around, there’s no scars, there’s no bleeding, you didn’t lose an arm, you didn’t lose a leg…that’s one of the most difficult things, not just to convince a lawyer, but you’ve got to convince a jury ultimately.”

During the final hour of the conference there was a lively discussion between the speakers and the attendees. Speakers answered questions they not address during their talks. There was animated discussion about how and why this unacceptable surgical abuse of women continues unrestricted in a civilized society.

At HERS unique conference every person had a voice, every woman, man and child.

Make your voice heard about the highly uncivilized and unacceptable practice of withholding information about the consequences of hysterectomy.

To order full conference and individual talks on DVD, email jkabak@hersfoundation.org or call 610.667.7757.

Indiana PPAN and Indiana ACLU Chapters Oppose Informed Consent

The Hysterectomy Educational Resources and Services (HERS) Foundation, a non-profit international women’s health education organization, held its 28^th annual conference in New York City on Saturday, April 24, 2010. The focus of the conference—hysterectomy informed consent legislation—recently drew opposing comments from representatives of two non-profit groups.

Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), an ardent women’s rights advocate, delivered the Keynote Address at the conference. State Representative Bruce Borders (R-IN), who recently proposed hysterectomy informed consent legislation in the form of House Bill 1366, addressed what voters can do to help bring about meaningful legislation to counteract the more than 621,000 hysterectomies performed each year on women in the U.S. who are not provided with information that is required for informed consent.

For nearly three decades, the HERS Foundation has been asking the question, who would deny women the anatomical facts that are requisite to hysterectomy informed consent? When this question was posed in an Indiana House of Representatives hearing, the Indiana Hospital Association and a gynecologist who claimed to represent the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) voiced opposition to HB1366. As did Planned Parenthood Action Network (PPAN) of Indiana and Indiana ACLU.

Planned Parenthood has long opposed video consent legislation, such as the one currently in place in Utah.[1] And in a missive PPAN of Indiana recently sent to its followers, they said of HB1366, “Thank you to all of our supporters who spoke out against this incredibly unjust and unnecessary bill.”[2] The HERS Foundation and other supporters of the bill welcome a public dialogue with representatives of PPAN to discuss their perception of how educating women about the anatomical facts of a life-altering surgery is “unjust and unnecessary” and the HERS position that informed consent is both just and necessary.

Indiana ACLU board member Joan Laskowski claimed that HB1366 “compromises dignity and autonomy protected by reproductive liberty.”[3] HERS also seeks a public dialogue with Indiana ACLU representatives who support Laskowski’s position that informed consent “compromises” rather than ensures dignity, autonomy, and liberty. In his book Patient Autonomy and the Ethics of Responsibility (MIT Press, 2005), Alfred I. Tauber unwaveringly states that informed consent supports autonomy and preserves dignity. I attempted to speak with Laskowski regarding her stance on a woman’s right to information required for informed consent. She restated her opinion and then ended the phone call, denying me the opportunity to speak.

HERS Foundation supporters include women and men from all political parties and from both sides of the abortion debate. Hysterectomy and abortion are about very different issues that should not be confused. Hysterectomy limits “reproductive liberty” in women who would choose to have children. Informed consent guarantees liberty and autonomy.

Hysterectomy is the surgical removal of the uterus, a hormone-responsive reproductive sex organ. Removal of the uterus impacts every cell in a woman’s body. Information about the consequences of the surgery is every woman’s right to know, prior to being told to sign a hysterectomy consent form.

Women scheduled for hysterectomies who watch HERS’ 12-minute video Female Anatomy: the Functions of the Female Organs report to HERS that they canceled their surgeries. Approximately 29% of medical expenditures are surgery-related, and hysterectomy is the most commonly performed non-obstetric surgery performed in the U.S.[4]

Hysterectomy represents more than $17B a year to the medical industry. If hysterectomies that are not life saving cease to be performed, hospitals and gynecologists will no longer benefit from more than half a million medically unwarranted hysterectomies performed each year. But the question remains unanswered why the Indiana representatives of two venerated non-profit organizations have mounted opposition to informed consent.

At issue here is medical ethics. Just as well-informed voters are at the heart of the American political system, no woman can be said to have provided consent without full, accurate information about the alternatives to and consequences of removal of her female organs prior to hysterectomy.

Politicians from both sides of the aisle have stepped forward in support of the HERS Foundation’s mandate to put information about the consequences of hysterectomy into informed consent. Borders, whose talk at the HERS conference was titled "Your Vote is Mightier than the Lobbyist's Dollar,” expressed surprise that two organizations one would expect to be natural allies of his bill not only did not support it but voiced opposition to it.

---

[1] Utah Criminal Code, Title 76, Offenses Against the Family, Section 305.5 Requirements for printed materials and informational video, http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_07_030505.htm

[2] Planned Parenthood Indiana, “IGA Update,” email, February 9, 2010.

[3] Joan Laskowski, VP Legislation, ACLU - IN Board Member, “Legislation Update At Mid-Session,” http://www.aclu-in.org/2010_general_assembly_at_midsession.

[4] Muñoz, Eric; Muñoz, William III; Wise, Leslie, “National and Surgical Health Care Expenditures, 2005-2025,” Annals of Surgery, February 2010, pp 195-200.

Nora W. Coffey, President

HERS Foundation

610-667-7757

888-750-HERS

jkabak@hersfoundation.org

CONGRESSWOMAN MALONEY TO DELIVER KEYNOTE ADDRESS

CONGRESSWOMAN MALONEY TO DELIVER KEYNOTE ADDRESS
Momentum Builds For Hysterectomy Informed Consent Legislation

What is so important about HERS Hysterectomy Conference on April 24th, 2010 and a screening of "un becoming" April 23rd, 2010 in New York City that a couple is driving from Florida and sleeping in a tent because they can’t afford a hotel room;  a woman who is unemployed and on disability is sharing a ride with a co-worker and driving cross country; and a woman living in rural England is traveling 3,346 miles to America with her husband?

Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney (NY) will deliver the Keynote Address at the HERS Foundation’s Twenty-Eighth Hysterectomy Conference, Saturday April 24th at the Hilton New York in Manhattan. Maloney is a tireless advocate for women’s rights, and she has pledged to do what is needed to ensure that women are given the information about the consequences of hysterectomy that is required for informed consent.  

State Representative Bruce Borders (IN) is a fearless fighter for Hysterectomy Video Informed Consent. Rep. Borders voiced his outrage when Indiana legislators chose to hear testimony about puppy mills over the most important human rights issue to ever come before them. He challenged fellow legislators that they cared more about their pets than their own wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters until the hearing on Hysterectomy Informed Consent was reinstated.  

Dr. Mitchell Levine, a leading medical expert will provide information every woman needs to know about diagnostic studies to evaluate symptoms, alternatives in treatment, and coping with the consequences of hysterectomy. Robert E. Myers, a senior trial attorney, will talk about medical malpractice issues. A panel of women who have undergone the surgery will share information about the impact of hysterectomy on their lives. Panel moderator, HERS president, Nora W. Coffey, will discuss the functional and anatomic changes responsible for the loss of sexuality, the role of the uterus and ovaries in maintaining normal endocrine function and living with hysterectomy-caused physical, family, professional and social problems.  

Everyone knows a woman who is silently suffering from the damaging effects of hysterectomy. As Tawanda Queen said in her testimony before the Health Committee in Indiana about life after hysterectomy, “I reduced my life down to the bare minimum in an attempt to continue working…and to give the appearance of normalcy...what I realized after my experience with informed consent for hysterectomy is that I had no business making any decisions concerning fibroids without having knowledge of my anatomy or an understanding of fibroids.”  

Join the growing number of people going to the conference to tell Congresswoman Maloney and Rep. Borders that they are with HERS and with them 100% in support of changing the Hysterectomy Informed Consent Law NOW!

Congresswoman Maloney (NY) To Be Keynote Speaker at Hysterectomy Conference April 24th, 2010

Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney (NY) will deliver the Keynote Address at the HERS Foundation’s 28^th Hysterectomy Conference, Saturday April 23rd at the Hilton Hotel in Manhattan.

Maloney, a Democrat from New York, is a powerful advocate for women’s rights, allied with such organizations as Emily’s List and the National Organization for Women. In 2008, she published “Rumors of Our Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated," a book that details the ongoing struggle women encounter on a number of fronts, including equal pay, politics, and healthcare.

State Representative Bruce Borders (IN) will discuss Hysterectomy Informed Consent legislation he introduced this year. Women   and men from around the country will be there to voice their support for hysterectomy informed consent legislation.

 Borders, a Republican from Indiana, recently proposed Hysterectomy Informed Consent legislation. His talk, "Your Vote is Mightier than the Lobbyist's Dollar," will address the legislative process and what conference speakers and attendees can do to enact meaningful legislation to counteract the more than 621,000 hysterectomies performed each year on women in the U.S. The information that is requisite to informed consent must be provided to every woman.

“un becoming,” by Rick Schweikert, will be screened on the eve of the conference. An explosive play written in the rich tradition of American political theater, “un becoming” premiered Off Broadway in 2004. It portrays the physical, political, economic, and social issues surrounding hysterectomy. The screening will be followed by a talkback with Schweikert and HERS President, Nora W. Coffey.

The public forum of the conference, combined with the imperative for hysterectomy informed consent legislation, will be embraced in a town hall style discussion at the conclusion of the day’s agenda, which can be viewed at http://hersfoundation.org/conference.html

Woman Awarded $5M After 'Unnecessary' Hysterectomy

What's a uterus worth if it's valued as a reproductive organ?

Verdict: $5 million dollars.

What's a uterus worth if it's valued as a hormone responsive sex organ that supports the bladder and bowel, and provides cardiovascular protection?

Verdict: $0.

A decade after 31 years old Sharon Virginelli was unnecessarily hysterectomized, she was awarded $5 million Wednesday by a Cook County jury against the doctor who performed an unnecessary hysterectomy after the delivery of Virginelli's first child.

Kudos to Sharon Virginelli and her lawyer, Keith Hebeisen of Clifford Law Offices, for waging this courageous court battle, where it is rare for unnecessary hysterectomy lawsuits to be brought, and even more rare for them to be won.

A Cook County jury deliberated for about four hours before reaching its verdict following a one-week trial in Cook County Circuit Court.

Sharon Virginelli, underwent a C-section in May 1999 at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. Her obstetrician, Dr. Pamela Lui, performed the surgery and determined a hysterectomy was necessary due to post-operative bleeding.

Experts testified that her bleeding was slowing down and that less drastic surgical techniques could have been performed to avoid the hysterectomy.

Press releases and articles have focused on the fact that she is now unable to have children. Unfortunately the many other critically important, life long functions of the uterus as a hormone responsive sex organ that provides structural support and cardiovascular protection, appear to have been ignored.

Unquestionably, this is a legal victory. But as all hysterectomized women know only too well, no amount of money can compensate for the loss of their health, sex, sexuality, and vitality.

New study shows link between female castration and lung cancer

Ovary Removal May Play a

Role in Lung Cancer

A new Canadian study reports that castration (removal of the female gonads, the ovaries) almost doubles a younger woman's risk for developing lung cancer. "It's possible that vulnerability to lung cancer is caused by early and sudden decrease in estrogen levels or potentially long-term use of hormone replacement therapy, and further research is needed to explore these hypotheses." said study co-author Jack Siemiatycki, a professor at the University of Montreal's Department of Social and Preventive Medicine.

The report was published online in the International Journal of Cancer in May 2009. It is based on a study of 999 patients from hospitals in Montreal including 422 women with lung cancer. "A major strength of this study was the detailed smoking information which we obtained from all study participants," said study co-author Anita Koushik. "This is important because of the role of smoking in lung cancer and because smokers generally have lower estrogen levels than non-smokers."

"Although smoking is the dominant cause of lung cancer, we know other factors can play an important role in enhancing the impact of tobacco carcinogens." Koushik added "This research suggests that, in women, hormonal factors may play such a role."

________________

A note from Nora W. Coffey

This important discovery should alert every woman and man to the fact that removal of the female organs creates a higher risk of life threatening health problems including but not limited to heart disease, stroke, dementia and lung cancer. Although not considered a "health" or life threatening problem, the loss of sexual feeling and loss of vitality associated with sexual energy are serious adverse effects of hysterectomy and/or castration. There are many more permanent consequences that have either not been discovered, or if known, they have been denied or not reported.

Hysterectomy? Slow down!

Hysterectomy: Putting On

The Brakes

The highest risk factor for hysterectomy is not the presence of disease. Women with intact female organs who have "routine" medical exams and public or private medical insurance are most at risk for hysterectomy.

When hysterectomy is recommended, most women respond by telling the doctor that removing their uterus is too drastic for the reason given for the operation. A small number of women think it would be freeing to not have menstrual cramps, bleeding, and PMS, but most women want to put on the brakes and slow down the rush toward surgery. Nonetheless, one out of every three women undergo hysterectomy by the age of 60, without the information required for informed consent.

The reason so many women are hysterectomized without informed consent is remarkably simple...as is the solution.

Many of the functions of the female organs - such as cardiovascular protection, pelvic support, and uterine orgasm to name a few - are not visible. On the other hand, because the male organs are visible, as are many of their functions, men would never consider the amputation of their male organs to be freeing. The solution to preventing unnecessary hysterectomy, then, is providing women with information about female anatomy and the functions of the female organs.

THE H WORD, the book co-authored by Nora W. Coffey and Rick Schweikert, tells the story of how and why the HERS video "Female Anatomy: the Functions of the Female Organs" was produced, and why it is at the heart of a legislative solution to end unwarranted hysterectomy and female castration. The video, vetted by gynecologists and an anatomy professor, includes the anatomical facts every woman requires to be fully informed. 98% of the women HERS has referred to board certified gynecologists after being told they needed hysterectomies discovered that, in fact, they did not need the surgery. With this video, women come to understand the information needed to put the brakes on the doctor's rush toward surgery, or to understand why they feel the way they do after the surgery.

The "Female Anatomy" video is an essential, low-cost, highly successful educational model that provides the information women need to make an informed decision about hysterectomy and castration. It is available for free on the HERS website and has been viewed by more than a million women and men.

It also represents the turning point in THE H WORD, where education meets political action. And as Lee Rothberg said in her review, "THE H WORD is the beginning of the end...the silence is over!"

HERS Honored With Women's Way Award

Amid the applause of 1,100 guests, the Women's Way 32nd Annual Powerful Voice Awards were presented in Philadelphia on May 6, 2009. The awards honored the accomplishments of Women Organized Against Rape (WOAR) Director Teresa White, community organizer and HIV/AIDS awareness advocate Waheedah Shabazz-El, and women's rights advocate and activist, Hysterectomy Educational Resources and Services (HERS) Foundation President Nora W. Coffey.

Women's Way Executive Director Melissa Weiler Gerber says of the award, it "serves as a call to action to women everywhere, encouraging us to increase women's influence in the media and make a difference in the community."

Women's Way is the first major women's organization to publicly acknowledge the importance of educating women about the damaging effects of hysterectomy and the lifelong functions of the female organs. The award is recognition that hysterectomy is one of the most serious health issues facing women today. As demonstrated in Nora's book THE H WORD, co-authored by Rick Schweikert, the hysterectomy rate is on the rise, and every woman with a uterus is at risk.

Women's Way presented HERS with an excellent opportunity to talk about the issues, but the award presenter was a pharmaceutical company representative. Nora's first thought was, "I can't accept an award presented by someone from the industry." HERS is an independent women's health education organization with a policy of not accepting support from the medical industry.

"Because there was no opportunity to address this issue publicly at the banquet," Nora said, "in keeping with HERS' mandate of education, I presented a copy of THE H WORD to the pharmaceutical rep as she handed me the award. That way, she could educate herself and her pharma colleagues about these issues."

Since 1977, Women's Way has been the country's oldest and largest women's funding federation. This award brings into focus the imperative to provide women with the information required for hysterectomy informed consent.

We welcome any ideas you might have about getting exposure for HERS and THE H WORD. Each time someone reads the book, it's another person who has been educated about these issues and someone who may educate others and join us in changing the law. Each time the book is in the media, in a bookstore, on a blog, or on a library shelf, the number of people who have access to this vital information is magnified many times over.

This is an opportunity to put hysterectomy information into the hands of those who need it...to save a girl, to save a woman, to save a family. To prevent hysterectomy from becoming the legacy of another generation of women and girls.

Fraud and Hysterectomy

Fraud in the inducement is a legal term used to describe a scenario where one person has tricked or deceived another into a harmful situation they would not have entered into if they had known they would be harmed.

In the example of hysterectomy, a woman is induced into signing a consent form under the guise that she needs the surgery, there are no alternatives to hysterectomy, and she may die without it. But that is rarely the case. She is also induced into signing the consent form by being told she will be "better than ever after the surgery," or that she will be a "new woman." She is then drugged, strapped to a table, and her female organs are removed, because of erroneous information supplied by the inducers. 

No woman is unharmed or undamaged by the removal of her female organs, but that is really not the point. The point is, women who are provided with the information required for informed consent, such as the information provided in the HERS video "Female Anatomy: the Functions of the Female Organs," decide against undergoing hysterectomy. 

As we make clear in our book The H Word: What gynecology doesn't want you to know about 100 years of hysterectomy and female castration in America, whether the surgery might be one of the 2% that are lifesaving or not is irrelevant. It's every woman's right to know the information that is requisite to informed consent prior to being asked to sign a hysterectomy consent form, whether she has a mere annoyance or a true health problem.

Fraud in the inducement for hysterectomy requires proof that 1) a false statement of material fact was made, 2) the doctor/hospital knew or should have known the material fact was false, 3) the false statement induced the woman into signing the consent form, and 4) the hysterectomy caused injury to the woman who relied on the misrepresentation as fact. 

False statements of material fact on medical websites are more the standard than the exception. A survey of doctor, government health agency, and hospital websites demonstrates that not only do doctors remove sex organs without providing the information required for informed consent, the information they do provide is often erroneous and unsupported by anatomical fact, as was confirmed on the blog post, "Hysterectomy and Female Castration: the Enablers Part II." Most of the false statements are authored by doctors and hospitals that claim to be sources of medical expertise, who should know that the information they publish runs contrary to anatomical fact. Women are encouraged to use this information to make a decision about hysterectomy. The adverse effects then cause injury to more than 621,000 women in the U.S. each year. 

For more on this subject, see the article "Sanctioned Violence Against Women," published in The Women's International Perspective (The Wip).  

We are interested to hear how your experience with hysterectomy fits the four requirements above for fraud in the inducement. Would you take part in a class action lawsuit against doctors and "patient education" institutions that supplied the erroneous information used to induce you to sign a hysterectomy consent form?

Please be brief in your comments about how your experience fits the four legal requirements of fraud in the inducement. 

Hysterectomy Causes Heart Disease

The American Heart Disassociation     

Heart disease was once thought to be less of a problem for women than for men. Research now indicates that heart disease is the No. 1 cause of death among women in the US (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Heart Disease Facts and Statistics, 2008), while confirming that women with an intact uterus have a lower incidence of heart disease because they benefit from the uterine advantage.

     In his article, "Prostacyclin From The Uterus And Woman's Cardiovascular Advantage," James D. Shelton writes, "Prostacyclin emanating from the uterus is proposed as a major contributor to the reduced risk of coronary disease among women." He refers to the uterus as a "systemically active organ whose removal significantly increases subsequent risk of myocardial infarction" (Prostaglandins Leukotrienes and medicine, 1982). 

     The American Heart Association reports that in 2006 there were 16.8 million cases of coronary heart disease in the US. About one in 18 Americans suffers from heart disease. This number would be much lower, if not for hysterectomy.

     Studies reveal that premenopausal removal of the uterus is associated with a three-times-greater incidence and prevalence of heart disease (Brandon S. Centerwall, "Premenopausal Hysterectomy and Cardiovascular Disease," American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1981) and that women who undergo a bilateral oophorectomy (surgical removal of the ovaries, castration) have a 5.5 times greater cardiovascular risk (Jacqueline C.M. Witteman et al, "Increased Risk of Atherosclerosis in Women After The Menopause," British Medical Journal, 1989). Other studies demonstrate that women who are castrated before age 35 are hospitalized for myocardial infarction 7.2 times more often than women with intact uterus and ovaries (Lynn Rosenberg et al, "Early Menopause and the Risk of Myocardial Infarction," American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1981).

     Hysterectomy is the most commonly performed non-obstetric surgery in the US, and there is general consensus even among the medical community that a majority of hysterectomies are unnecessary. Hysterectomy rates are subject to variations that do not necessarily correlate with health factors. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for example, tell us that women in the South are 50 percent more likely to be hysterectomized than in the Northeast. And the hysterectomy rate among black women is 20 percent higher than among white women.

     Some researchers and medical writers attempt to explain the higher incidence of hysterectomy and removal of the ovaries in black women by demonstrating that they have a higher incidence of fibroids. As the Hysterectomy Educational Resources and Services (HERS) Foundation makes clear in the online educational video, "Female Anatomy: the Functions of the Female Organs," fibroids are benign growths that rarely cause symptoms or problems, until a doctor spots them incidentally during a routine exam.

     Although less than 1 percent of fibroids are cancer (William Parker et al, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1994), fibroids are the leading reason doctors perform hysterectomy. But women who are told they need a hysterectomy for fibroids may merely have the wrong doctor. Not surprisingly, not only are black women more likely to be hysterectomized, heart disease is the No. 1 cause of death among black women.

     The CDC's Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention reports that 870,000 people died in 2008 - 2,400 each day - from heart disease. "The cost of heart disease and stroke in the United States," the CDC concluded, "is projected to be more than $448 billion in 2008, including health care expenditures and lost productivity from death and disability." The financial burden and tragedy of heart disease as a result of hysterectomy is largely avoidable.

     According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, one of every three women is hysterectomized before the age of 60, while the American Heart Association reports that nearly one out of every three women dies of heart disease.

     Visitors to the "Go Red For Women" web site are encouraged to tell the American Heart Association "about the choices you've made to improve your well being." Women can avoid much of the risk of heart disease by retaining their uterine advantage - cardiovascular well-being that depends in large part on the lifelong functions of the uterus.''     

     Drastically reducing cardiovascular risk, circumventing much of the staggering cost of heart disease charged to medicaid and Medicare, and avoiding the tragic toll of thousands of strokes and deaths may be achieved by helping women avoid hysterectomy.

Published February 16, 2009 in Truthout.

     

PAYING FOR THE BAILOUT

As we tighten our belts at home and abroad, we are all accountable for the burden of national debt we pass along to future generations. Local and international relief efforts for the poor are also feeling the pinch, which makes the search for ways to heal our broken economy a humanitarian effort.

Although medical profits continue to soar, there have been rumblings lately that the next "industry" to show up in Washington hat-in-hand will be medicine ("Disappearing Credit Forces Hospitals to Delay Improvements," Reed Abelson, New York Times, October 14, 2008). Meanwhile, evidence abounds that an increasing portion of our tax dollars that fund Medicare and Medicaid are the most lucrative revenue stream for the medical industry, and a large portion of those expenditures are going toward unnecessary, even harmful surgeries, not unquestionably-needed emergency care.

Any savings to be realized, without causing more people to become disadvantaged, must be embraced immediately. So-called port barrel federal expenses, and those that can be revealed to cause more damage than good, must be the first to go.

A staggering number of surgeries have been proven in study after study to be medically unwarranted and cause more harm than good. Rob Stein of The Washington Post reports, "One of the most common surgical procedures performed in the United States - arthroscopy to treat arthritis in the knee - is useless, researchers reported yesterday." So let's take a look at the two most over-utilized, most commonly performed surgeries in America - cesarean sections and hysterectomies.

When a doctor and a hospital get involved in the natural process of childbirth, time is money. "Spontaneous deliveries," as they are often referred to (where there is no surgical intervention), are time-consuming for doctors. In rare instances, such as when the placenta happens to block its own exit by attaching to the uterine wall close to or covering the cervix (placenta previa), C-section may be lifesaving for both baby and mother. Also, when the placenta does not detach from the uterine wall (placenta accreta), sometimes a hysterectomy is the only way of saving the mother's life. But placenta previa can often be managed conservatively and occurs in only 1 in 200 pregnancies. Placenta accreta occurs in only 1 in 2,500 pregnancies. Combined, they account for only one half of one percent of C-sections, which means that as many as 99% of C-sections may be medically unwarranted.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reports that nearly 1/3 of all births in the U.S. are surgical, with up to a four-times higher risk of complications ("Caesarean Section Before 39th Week Poses Extra Risk, Study Finds," January 7, 2009.) Judith Reichman of NBC News reports that more than 30% of the 4.3 million U.S. births each year are surgical deliveries. However, Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, an ardent advocate of home birth and the founder of Homefirst Health Services in Chicago, reports that Homefirst's C-section rate is only 4.1%.

Depending on the severity of C-section complications, each surgical delivery taxes Americans anywhere between $2,000 and $200,000, in addition to the cost of an in-hospital birth. As reported by Rita Rubin in the January 7, 2007 USA Today, "The average initial hospital cost of a planned C-section for a first-time mother was 76% higher than that for a planned vaginal birth." A conservative estimate of C-section expenses burdening American families would top $3 billion each year for additional doctor and hospital charges alone.

As for hysterectomy, Ashley Montagu wrote in his book The Natural Superiority of Women about a House of Representatives subcommittee investigating the incidence of unnecessary hysterectomy. "Various sources," he writes, "put the percentage of unnecessary hysterectomies anywhere between 24 and 88 percent." Findings from more than 850,000 counseling sessions at the HERS Foundation in Philadelphia puts the percentage of hysterectomies that could be avoided with conservative treatment (or no treatment at all), at about 98%.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report that more than 1/3 of American women have their female organs removed by the age of 60. The CDC also reports that the incidence of cancer in the female organs and the male organs is virtually identical, while the incidence of male organ removal is statistically insignificant.

"'We have four times the hysterectomy rate of any industrialized nation, in this country,'" said [Ernst] Bartsich, a clinical associate professor at Weill Cornell Medical College. At age 60, one out of every three women has had a hysterectomy; and at age 65, one out of two women have had a hysterectomy. And 85 percent are not necessary" (Newsday, May 2004, Roni Rabin).

In a September 5, 2007 article published in Health Insurance Underwriter's magazine, Rick Schweikert reports that more than $17 billion each year is spent on direct doctor and hospital charges for hysterectomy. In 2007, the HERS Foundation released an educational female anatomy video on its website that was vetted by gynecologists and other medical and legal experts. Ninety-eight percent of the women who watch the video and call the HERS Foundation do not proceed with the doctor's recommendations for hysterectomy after learning about the unavoidable and irreversible consequences of removal of the female organs - facts that women are not informed of by doctors. The long-term cost of treatment and subsequent surgeries, and a lifetime of harmful drugs and treatments for the problems caused by hysterectomy and ovary removal, could easily top the $17 billion paid for the initial surgery.

According to their 2008 SEC filings, the largest hospital chain in the U.S., the Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) - founded by the family of former Senator and Majority Leader Bill Frist - reports that in 2008 about 49% of their revenues and 59% of their hospital admissions were Medicare and Medicaid "related." In 2007, HCA reported revenues of $26.9 billion, approximately $16 billion of which (according to HCA) was paid for by American taxpayers.

What most people may not know is that HCA "plead guilty to 14 felonies" and was hit with a $1.7B fine - far-and-away the largest such fine in history - for Medicare fraud, as reported by Kurt Eichenwald in the December 18, 2002 New York Times. These fines, it seems, were a minor bump in the road for HCA, on their way to grabbing hundreds of billions of American taxpayer dollars in the years to come. Doctors and hospitals reap the financial benefit of surgeries, whether they are warranted or not. American taxpayers, both in terms of Medicare/Medicaid payouts and higher insurance premiums, pay the price.

No mother or father whose child has a medical emergency should be required to answer any questions or demonstrate any ability to pay for medical services when they arrive at an emergency room seeking care. But as our government strategizes how to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in its economic stimulus package, we owe it to future generations to unshackle ourselves from doctors and hospitals performing medically unwarranted surgeries.

In a December 2, 2007 article titled "National Debt Grows at a Million Dollars a Minute," (published long before any talk of "bailout" packages), the Associated Press reports that, "retirement and health benefit programs now make up the largest component of federal spending. Defense is next. And moving up fast in third place is interest on the national debt."

Each million dollars saved today could save future generations tens of millions of dollars in interest on the national debt. As President Obama said in his inaugural address, "Our health care is too costly." In these trying times, Americans are not in a position to leave $17B a year of unnecessary medical expenses on the table. Especially when it will keep hundreds of thousands of American women off the operating table, with their female organs intact.

Published February 4, 2009 in The Women's International Perspective.

NAME THAT DOCTOR AND HOSPITAL

      

NAME THAT DOCTOR AND HOSPITAL

I am Nora W. Coffey,  president of the Hysterectomy Educational Resources and Services (HERS) Foundation.  

When I was thirty-six years old, I was hysterectomized and castrated by Robert Giuntoli, at the University of Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia, and his assistant Douglas Rabin. I was not informed by Giuntoli or Rabin of the consequences of the surgery, therefore my surgery was unconsented. The anesthesiologist and nurses who participated in the surgery were complicit. The hospital enabled them.

Giuntoli and I agreed that he would perform exploratory surgery to determine if the ovarian cyst that was symptomatic was malignant. If it was not, he would perform a cystectomy, removal of the cyst only. If it was malignant, he would remove my uterus and ovaries. The cyst was benign. In direct contravention to my expressed wishes and the agreement with Giuntoli, he proceeded to remove my female organs.

The removal of my female organs destroyed my health and well-being and ruined my family, professional, and social life. No longer healthy, strong, vibrant and sexual, I turned my attention to finding the answers to what was wrong with me that stumped the 25 or more doctors I saw in the first year after the surgery. I found answers in the medical library at the University of Pennsylvania, next door to the hospital where Giuntoli and Rabin collaborated. For the next two years I walked by the hospital every day to get to the library. After two years of research I understood full well what had been done to me. I have dedicated every day of my life  since then to providing that information to other women.

Watch the female anatomy video on HERS website. Then, unless you are actively involved in a medical malpractice lawsuit, give your name and the name of the doctor(s) who removed your female organs and the hospital that enabled them. You have nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to hide from, you have done nothing wrong. By telling the truth you shine a spot light on the doctors and hospitals ruining the lives of another woman every minute of every hour of every day of every year. 621,000 hysterectomies are performed each year in the USA alone. That's not just a number, it's much more than a statistic - it's women's bodies, women's lives.

Do not let the doctor who ruined your body, your health, your sex life, your family life, your career, your professional life and your social life hide behind the good doctor persona and the hospital walls that shield them.

It's time to speak out, it's time to expose the doctors who failed to inform you of the consequences of hysterectomy and castration. By giving your name and the name of the doctor and hospital we can smoke them out of their protected environment. Together we can stop this from being done to another generation of women and girls. 

It must be made unacceptable, it must be stopped legally. Sign the petition to show your legislators that you demand a law that protects women from the violent medical practice of hysterectomy and castration.

The Hysterectomy Marketplace - Research and Development

OBGYN.net - a hysterectomy survey titled…“Considering a Hysterectomy?”

The title is so casual it could be called… "Considering a Dessert?”

At first glimpse this appears to be a legitimate survey about the effects of hysterectomy. But it quickly reveals itself to be a device to obtain information for gynecologists and the medical industry to learn the most effective language they can use to promote hysterectomy to women. It’s a marketing tool whose purpose is to feed women into the surgical mill.

OBGYN.net’s approach seems to encourage our trust in their information.

OBGYN.net is vast, an ever growing and expanding

universe with over 1,000,000 pages of educational

content, discussion forums, videos, educational

tutorials, images, Ask the Expert, personal experiences,

career, job and product information, news, reports

from key conferences and social networking.

However, their website is littered with ads for the pharmaceutical and medical/surgical industry. Ads for physicians dominate every aspect of their site.

OBGYN.net was crafted by a company called Medispeciality, http://medispecialty.com/ which specializes in optimizing medical investment and marketing to the consumer market. They offer “tracking programs to cost effectively feed the sale pipeline” and their "flagship website OBGYN.net. “

In OBGYN.net’s newsletter dated November 25, 2008, their website beckons women to Ask the Expert asks women to fill out a hysterectomy survey, http://www.obgyn.net/survey/hysterectomy/. The survey begins as follows:

Help other women facing these decisions by filling out

this survey and we will send you the results of the

study so you can know what other women are saying.

Are you considering having a hysterectomy...?

Once you answer the question yes, that you are considering a hysterectomy, the survey begins. If you answer no, you will be told the following: "Thank you for your willingness to participate in this study. Unfortunately, we can only accept information from women who are considering having a hysterectomy." OBGYN.net only wants to pass along information about hysterectomy from women who are "considering" the surgery. They do not allow women who have been hysterectomized or women who have decided against the surgery to weigh in. It is not that they "can only accept" the information they are looking for. They are only interested in the information that is shaped to be beneficial to them, not you. This survey is a lead-generator for doctors.

If you answer yes to the entry question, you are allowed to proceed through the first 11 questions, regarding your age, employment status, why a hysterectomy is being "considered", ranking from 1-10 how you feel about being told you need a hysterectomy, how you define hysterectomy, and how well informed you are about why and how hysterectomies are performed. This demographic information about women helps gynecologists, device manufacturers, and the hospitals who benefit from the removal of your female organs to hone their sales pitch to women.

Question 12 asks, "If your symptoms warrant a hysterectomy, how difficult would it be for you to have your uterus removed after you have completed having children?" The implication is that the only thing that might make hysterectomy difficult is if you desire to have children, or if you do not intend to have more children, then hysterectomy should not be difficult for you. There is no mention of the well-documented adverse effects that result from removing the uterus - whether you have children or not, whether you want children or not, is irrelevant.

Question 13-16 ask how well informed you are of "the role" of the cervix and ovaries, how concerned you are about their removal, and who you turn to for more information about these issues. The question informs you that they have a "role", but the question is never asked about how well informed you are about the functions of the uterus. It implies that the cervix and ovaries have a "role", and that the uterus has none except for childbearing.

Question 17 asks, "If the physician currently caring for your gynecological health recommends a hysterectomy treatment or alternative, to what extent do you trust their opinion?" The only answers they allow to this question are A) "I trust my doctor completely," B) "I trust my doctor, but may do some research on my own," or C) "I basically trust my doctor, but would seek a second opinion or some outside counsel." If you don't trust your doctor, you're out of luck, that answer is not an option.

Question 18 asks you to rate from 1-7 different factors in deciding which method of hysterectomy you might choose. The last two "factors" ask how important choosing a type of hysterectomy with "no change in sexual satisfaction" and "no change in urinary control" might be. There is no mention of the fact that in order to amputate the uterus with or without amputation of the cervix, the nerves that are attached to the uterus that flow into the cervix must be severed. Removal of the body of the uterus compromises bladder support and often causes urinary problems. Uterine orgasm is not possible without a uterus, so for women who experience uterine orgasm, avoiding sexual loss is unavoidable after the uterus is removed, regardless of the method. Furthermore, the participant must respond falsely to some questions. In two sections you must rate the importance of your answers, with #1 ranked the highest importance. You cannot assign the same number twice. If any questions have equal importance, you must rate one higher than the others, which makes your answer, and the conclusions drawn from it erroneous.

Question 20 asks, "Are you willing to consider treatments that may temporarily relieve symptoms and delay the need for hysterectomy for a few years?" What might be inferred from this question is that A) only hysterectomy provides permanent relief from symptoms, B) alternatives only provide temporary relief, and C) once a doctor says you need a hysterectomy, it is just a matter of time, and within 1,3, or 5 years you will be hysterectomized, so why bother with an alternative.

Question 21 is hardly a question at all. "Leaving the cervix maintains pelvic support potentially reducing the risk of incontinence, and appears to play a role in sexual satisfaction. Generally, the risk of vaginal/cervical cancer is less than 1% regardless of whether the cerix is left in place." They then ask whether or not you would like to keep your cervix. There is no need to consider amputation of the cervix unless there is a life threatening cervical disease. Questions 4 and 5 list only benign conditions that they say might lead to hysterectomy (fibroids, endometriosis, heavy bleeding, PMS). Those "conditions" can be treated conservatively, without removal of the uterus or cervix. As OBGYN.net states, the risk of cancer in the female organs is statistically insignificant.

Finally, question 22 cuts to the quick, and a probable reason for this survey comes into focus. It tells women that hysterectomy by laparoscopy is performed through a smaller incision, the cervix need not necessarily be removed, and that the hospital stay and "recovery" times are less. Then it asks women which one they want - abdominal, vaginal, or laparoscopic hysterectomy.

The adverse effects of hysterectomy are permanent and irreversible, so "recovery" is not possible. For most hysterectomized women, the size of the scar, whether the cervical stump remains or not, and the length of the hospital stay quickly become inconsequential when they begin to realize that the damage done to their bodies and their lives is permanent.

The survey then tells you "95% of women are candidates for a Laparoscopic Supracervical Hysterectomy." In other words, regardless of almost all conditions, you are a candidate, as if hysterectomy is a given, a rite of passage for all women, healthy or not, and the only issue is how it will be carried out.

The remainder of the survey is a sales pitch of LSH. You have learned almost nothing of value, and you have been bombarded with subliminal programming, pressure and misinformation.

At the end of the survey, OBGYN.net says, "Thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey. Your input will help other women as they face this difficult decision." They then request your name and email address. This survey is clearly not intended to "help other women," because it supplies erroneous information. You have just been led through a sales pitch for LSH that is posing as a helpful survey. In other words, you have just participated in medispecialty's "lead generation, qualifying, and tracking programs," and now you are in their "sale pipeline." This "survey" is a poll of their target market, women with intact sex organs, and your uterus is the bulls eye. It is research and development, designed to inform gynecologists about the most productive way they can increase their market share by selling hysterectomy to unsuspecting women.

Let the buyer beware.