Heart disease, cancer, menopause and endometriosis: millions of European women are paying the price of late diagnoses, underfunded research and medicines never properly tested on their bodies.
Petra Pavlovičová
On 23 June, the European Parliament’s committee on women’s rights and gender equality (FEMM) voted on a report on women’s health. Its findings? A stark picture of the inequalities that continue to shape the health of women across Europe.
The report passed comfortably, with 27 votes in favour, nine against and no abstentions.
Unsurprisingly, the opposition came from the Right: the rightwing European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), and the far-right Patriots for Europe (PfE) and Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN). According to Billy Kelleher, Irish MEP for Renew Europe and the Parliament’s lead negotiator on the file, these groups continue to promote a narrative that undermines equality.
In this interview, Kelleher reflects on the persistent injustices women face across the continent and explains why addressing gender inequalities in healthcare remains a political priority.
How are women’s bodies treated differently in medicine and in science?
Well, one of the fundamental issues is the culture of medicine and science. For many years, it was a male-dominated preserve. A lot of the training programmes and priorities were very often male-centric. That was an issue you could sense in terms of the culture of education of clinicians and even the work from the academic space as well.
But I think more relevant now is the issue of funding, clinical trials and access to medicines. Certainly, there is still inequality in that. If you look at clinical trials, for example, very often certain cohorts of women are not included, which is a significant challenge, bearing in mind that half the population of the world is female. Then you take several cohorts out of that population base that aren’t included in clinical trials, and I think that throws the clinical trials out in terms of representing the broader population.
When clinical trials don’t include the entire population, you are unsure how medicines will affect certain cohorts, such as pregnant women or women who are breastfeeding.
Women’s bodies are different from men’s. That is simply a fact. We can’t assume that if something is safe for men, it is automatically safe for women.
Isn’t it true that breastfeeding and pregnant women are excluded from many clinical trials because of safety concerns?
Yes, but we have to look at all those things. We have to consider efficacy, risk factors, and weigh all of those issues, and I accept that.
But clearly, we also have to be conscious that we can’t simply dismiss entire population groups without valid evidence that the risks justify doing so.
Experts are best placed to make those decisions. That is why the European Medicines Agency should be involved in drawing up guidelines so these issues can be properly explored, rather than automatically excluding certain population groups.
I have seen the measures proposed to tackle these issues and they go through investment in women’s health research, stronger inclusion of women in clinical trials, and gender sensitivity in diagnosis and treatment. How is it possible that such measures have not been taken yet?
A lot of clinical trials, and those running them, very often exclude certain cohorts: women who are breastfeeding, pregnant women, women of certain ages. That is a significant issue. So we are saying there has to be some assessment of, and obligations to ensure, a broad base of representation across the various population cohorts when developing clinical trials.
We are talking about the European Medicines Agency bringing forward guidelines for better inclusion rates, mandating sex-disaggregated data, for example, and mandating gender-sensitive research design throughout the full research cycle. Those are just three areas in the context of clinical trials.
Another area is the amount of money that is actually spent on research in healthcare. In particular, in gender-specific areas, there is a lack of funding and investment in certain areas of women’s healthcare, and that is a significant issue as well.
You mentioned guidelines. These are not done yet?
No. This is our report. These are our recommendations. Our report has just been voted on in committee, and obviously it will be going to the plenary session, probably in September.
We got good support in committee, and I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs and rapporteurs for their contribution. But at the end of the day, if it is not ratified by parliament, we have to make sure the various political groups support it.
When you look at diagnostics, for example, it is a significant issue. Cancer in women is diagnosed two-and-a-half years later than in men. Cancer diagnoses take longer in women than in men.
How is that possible?
