Female Cancer Survivors Lack Frank Sex Talk From Docs

[LadyBug02]

FRIDAY, July 27 (HealthDay News) -- Three out of four women treated for genital tract cancer feel their doctors should initiate more conversations about the cancer's impact on their sexual health, new research finds.

"We found that these women valued sexuality and participated in sexual relationships and activities at a rate similar to women who had not been through cancer treatment, but they were not adequately prepared for the sexual issues that their cancer or its treatment introduced," study author Dr. Stacy Lindau said in a prepared statement. The sexual problems included pain and limited lubrication.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20070728...STpZ3PTZ3rSLYF

Sounds like most doctors need to be a little more frank when it comes to talking about sex with their clients and other related issues. Unfortunately, sex is such a taboo topic in western society that many are simply afraid to bring it up. I wish there were something that could be done to change this. Any ideas?

[-wittyphrasehere-]

A more positive, educated media spin on sex plus increased public service announcements. It's one of those attitudes that will take time. But it seems the current generation is more open to sex discussions than the previous ones (mostly).

[sera300]

Originally Posted by -wittyphrasehere-

A more positive, educated media spin on sex plus increased public service announcements. It's one of those attitudes that will take time. But it seems the current generation is more open to sex discussions than the previous ones (mostly).

Look for progressive doctors or healthcare providers such as PA's or NP's. Never settle for one who does not educate, right down to nurses...it's their job.

[LadyBug02]

Originally Posted by -wittyphrasehere-

A more positive, educated media spin on sex plus increased public service announcements. It's one of those attitudes that will take time. But it seems the current generation is more open to sex discussions than the previous ones (mostly).

I agree. Your suggestion makes sense and I believe it would work.

[Brandye]

A problem with "specialist based medical care" (we call them "consultants" in the UK) is lack of treatment of the whole person. Oncologists tend to treat the cancer and and that is the end. A gynaecologist can miss other physical factors that have stopped a woman's orgasmic response. This is thinking within specialities. The oncologist may not even be aware that the treatment given will reduce vaginal lubrication; what is important is that the cancer is removed.

An advantage of GP based care is the doctor is focused on the whole being using reports and input from the consultants. Of course, I am prejudiced.

What I am suggesting, I guess, is get a good GP (family practicioner, internist) and allow that doctor to truly coordinate your care.

[sera300]

You are right on Brandye...GP's here outsource to specialties and there is no coordination of care. Many GP's here will not even approach sex topics, they send to GYN or Urology. It's really very sad.

[LadyBug02]

What is a GP?

[sera300]

Originally Posted by LadyBug02

What is a GP?

General Practitioner...

[sera300]

Originally Posted by -wittyphrasehere-

A more positive, educated media spin on sex plus increased public service announcements. It's one of those attitudes that will take time. But it seems the current generation is more open to sex discussions than the previous ones (mostly).

The major downfall to this approach is parents would have to understand and acknowledge their kids are having sex. The parents who recognize it already and are open, ensure their kids are properly informed & have proper protection.

The opposing competing interest is the parents who are still stuck on abstinence and rather hide their head in the sand then to deal with the matter. As soon as information is publicly released parents & interest groups become involved to suppress the issue.

In turn the media is forced to pull the announcements and publicity since the advertisers are boycotted by these groups. It's an ideal approach yet very unlikely to happen especially under the current Administration.

As I tell parents, You can not afford not to discuss safe sex practices with your kids regardless of weather you approve or not; it may cost them their lives...

[-wittyphrasehere-]

Originally Posted by sera300

The major downfall to this approach is parents would have to understand and acknowledge their kids are having sex. The parents who recognize it already and are open, ensure their kids are properly informed & have proper protection.

The opposing competing interest is the parents who are still stuck on abstinence and rather hide their head in the sand then to deal with the matter. As soon as information is publicly released parents & interest groups become involved to suppress the issue.

In turn the media is forced to pull the announcements and publicity since the advertisers are boycotted by these groups. It's an ideal approach yet very unlikely to happen especially under the current Administration.

Very true. I encountered a similar problem with advertising for an Amnesty group except the target audience were high schoolers. They simply didn't care and the Principle didn't want anything too... gory or traumatizing despite my subject matter was Darfur.

Originally Posted by sera300

As I tell parents, You can not afford not to discuss safe sex practices with your kids regardless of weather you approve or not; it may cost them their lives...

The media and public service announcements should take that approach. It wouldn't make sense to force subject matter onto an audience that is ignoring in the first place and that's causing these issues.