高清福利片

Corporations have used feminist language to promote their products for decades. In the 1980s, companies co-opted messaging about female autonomy to encourage women鈥檚 consumption of unhealthy commodities,聽.

Today, feminist narratives around empowerment and women鈥檚 rights are being co-opted to market interventions that are not backed by evidence across many areas of women鈥檚 health. This includes by commercial companies, industry, mass media and well-intentioned advocacy groups.

Some of these health technologies, tests and treatments are useful in certain situations and can be very beneficial to some women.

However, promoting them to a large group of asymptomatic healthy women that are unlikely to benefit, or without being transparent about the limitations, runs the risk of causing more harm than good. This includes inappropriate medicalisation, overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

In our analysis published today in the聽, we examine this phenomenon in two current examples: the anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) test and breast density notification.

The AMH test is a blood test associated with the number of eggs in a woman鈥檚 ovaries and is sometimes referred to as the 鈥渆gg timer鈥� test.

Although often used in fertility treatment, the AMH test cannot reliably predict the聽, timing to pregnancy or聽. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists therefore聽聽for women not seeking fertility treatment.

Despite this, several聽听补苍诲听聽market the AMH test to women not even trying to get pregnant. Some use feminist rhetoric promising empowerment, selling the test as a way to gain personalised insights into your fertility. For example, 鈥溌爐o know your reproductive potential鈥�, 鈥溌燼bout your fertility鈥� and 鈥溌爓ill empower you to make the best decisions when family planning鈥�.

The use of feminist marketing makes these companies appear socially progressive and champions of female health. But they are selling a test that has no proven benefit outside of IVF and cannot inform women about their current or future fertility.

翱耻谤听聽found around 30% of women having an AMH test in Australia may be having it for these reasons.

Misleading women to believe that the test can reliably predict fertility can create a false sense of security about delaying pregnancy. It can also create unnecessary anxiety, pressure to freeze eggs, conceive earlier than desired, or start fertility treatment when it may not be needed.

While some companies mention the test鈥檚 limitations if you read on, they are glossed over and contradicted by the calls to be proactive and messages of empowerment.

Breast density is one of several independent risk factors for breast cancer. It鈥檚 also harder to see cancer on a mammogram image of breasts with high amounts of dense tissue than breasts with a greater proportion of fatty tissue.

While estimates vary, approximately 25鈥�50% of women in the breast screening population聽.

Stemming from valid concerns about the increased risk of cancer, advocacy efforts have used feminist language around women鈥檚 right to know聽聽鈥渨omen need to know the truth鈥� and 鈥渨omen can handle the truth鈥� to argue for widespread breast density notification.

However, this simplistic messaging overlooks that this is a complex issue and that聽聽on whether the benefits of notifying and providing additional screening or tests to women with dense breasts outweigh the harms.

Additional tests (ultrasound or MRI) are now being recommended for women with dense breasts as they have the ability to detect more cancer. Yet, there is no or little mention of the聽聽showing that it prevents breast cancer deaths. These extra tests also have out-of-pocket costs and high rates of false-positive results.

Large international advocacy groups are also sponsored by companies that will聽.

While stronger patient autonomy is vital, campaigning for breast density notification without stating the limitations or unclear evidence of benefit may go against the empowerment being sought.

Increased awareness and advocacy in women鈥檚 health are key to overcoming sex inequalities in health care.

But we need to ensure the goals of feminist health advocacy aren鈥檛 undermined through commercially driven use of feminist language pushing care that isn鈥檛 based on evidence. This includes more transparency about the risks and uncertainties of health technologies, tests and treatments and greater scrutiny of conflicts of interests.

Health professionals and governments must also ensure that easily understood, balanced information based on high quality scientific evidence is available. This will enable women to make more informed decisions about their health.

This article was original published on The Conversation as:聽. It was written by Dr Brooke Nickel and Dr Tessa Copp聽from the University of Sydney School of Public Health,聽 University of Sydney.聽