Share

The American Heart Disassociation

by: Nora W. Coffey, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
(Photo: David Goehring)

    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 intact women (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 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 indication for 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 the risk of heart disease by retaining their uterine advantage - cardiovascular well-being that depends 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.

    --------

    Nora W. Coffey is president of the Hysterectomy Educational Resources and Services (HERS) Foundation. She has been a guest lecturer at medical schools, nursing schools and conferences, has been interviewed in most major publications, including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, New York Magazine, Vogue and Harpers, and has appeared on numerous television and radio shows, including 20/20, Oprah Winfrey, National Public Radio's Fresh Air, and The Today Show. Her most recent article,"Paying For the Bailout: How Unnecessary Medical Procedures are Taxing the System," was published in The Women's International Perspective, February 4, 2009.

    An international nonprofit organization, HERS was established in 1982 to meet the need for accurate information about alternatives to and consequences of hysterectomy by addressing the multiplicity of physical, social, economic and political issues surrounding the surgery. HERS is the only independent organization solely dedicated to the issue of hysterectomy, and it has counseled over 850,000 women, while providing information to millions more throughout the world. Ninety-eight percent of the women HERS has referred to board-certified gynecologists after being told they needed hysterectomies discovered that, in fact, they did not need surgery.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Has there been any attempt

Has there been any attempt to treat post-hysterectomy patients with a prostacyclin substitute, as is possible in hormone replacement therapy?

I had a hysterectomy at age

I had a hysterectomy at age 48. At age 70 I was diagnosed with A-fib, and valve closure problems. Could this be related to the hysterectomy?

There are prostacyclin

There are prostacyclin substitutes that are indicated for use for hypertension (big part of heart disease). I don't believe they are used prophylactically in patients who have had a hysterectomy, because insurances typically do not like to pay for something like this. They are EXTREMELY expensive, and there are many good alternatives that work. Although it would be interesting to see if treatment lowers the rate of heart disease among woman who have had a hysterectomy...

There is no substitute for

There is no substitute for the uterine production of prostacyclin. Although hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is marketed, as the name implies, as a drug that can "replace" the ovarian production of hormones, HRT is an oxymoron. It is not possible to replace the functions of the ovaries. The ovaries, the female gonads, produce all of the hormones a woman needs, in the quantity that she needs them, and releases them at the time that she needs them, directly into the circulating blood stream. There are no pills, no patches, and no injections that are better than or equal to the natural ovarian production of hormones.

To There are prostacyclin:

To There are prostacyclin: Even more interesting than trying drugs that may cause complications to treat cardiovascular disease, would be stopping the 98% of hysterectomies that are unwarranted. Stopping hysterectomy is a cure for hysterectomy induced heart disease that is 100% beneficial, there are no adverse effects to leaving the female organs intact.

Yes, female hormones provide

Yes, female hormones provide a heart-protective effect in premenopausal women. But after age 65, the risk of heart disease in men and women is essentially identical, precisely because female hormones are no longer active. To imply that the one in three women who have hysterectomies in the US are the same one in three women who will develop heart disease is overstating the case tremendously. To the extent that premature heart disease in premenopausal women is caused by unneeded hysterectomies, you have a strong case to make. Please don't weaken your case by over-reaching the data.

As a retired physician who

As a retired physician who was in a non-gynecological field , I am not competent to comment on the validity , pro or con, of the need for a hysterectomy; but I am struck by the dates of the references given by the author, Each is more than 25 years old. If her claim is currently felt to be correct by physicians in the field then surely she should be able to cite current articles in peer reviewed medical journals or current medical textbooks backing her claim that there is a relationship between a hysterectomy and cardiovascular disease. Such articles must also indicate whether the ovaries, the source of most estrogens ( which also can influence the cardiovascular system) were or were not removed for they are often removed at the same time as a hysterectomy, Which patients were or were not given estrogens post-operatively? Estrogens also have an effect on the cardiovascular system and so must be taken into account. This may vary with the age of the person. When up-to-date references are not given, it becomes very suspicious that subsequent studies did not confirm the contention that there is indeed such a relationship.

What about tubal ligation ?

What about tubal ligation ? Does the ligation and therefore the cesation of the ovaries have any influence on heart disease ?

I cannot find substantiation

I cannot find substantiation of this article. Is this a new study? I think it is important but I cannot use it if there is no published research to substantiate this.

Anonymous (at 06:12) said

Anonymous (at 06:12) said that tubal ligation causes the ovaries to cease functioning. This is incorrect, AFAIK. The ovaries would still produce an egg each month and do whatever they do ordinarily, but the egg simply wouldn't come through the Fallopian tubes to be fertilized. It would die, but the ovaries themselves should work normally until menopause.

Dear Substantiation, It's

Dear Substantiation, It's right in the peer-reviewed article, which has been widely cited: James D. Shelton, "Prostacyclin From The Uterus And Woman's Cardiovascular Advantage," Prostaglandins Leukotrienes and Medicine, 1982

And dear As A Retired

And dear As A Retired Physician who, If the study were 100 years old, what difference would it make? The uterus hasn't stopped producing prostacyclin, it's just that no one is writing about it. Kudos to Truthout for reviving a widely cited (to this day) article that demonstrates that the uterus has many functions beyond child bearing and menstruation. Another recent article by Nora W. Coffey at The WIP and republished by Truthout answers some of your other questions: http://www.truthout.org/020509WA

Type the title to Shelton's

Type the title to Shelton's article into a google search, you'll see that many other studies and articles cite this ground-breaking research. It's shameful that the American Heart Association doesn't list hysterectomy as a risk factor for heart disease. The loss of the functions of the uterus in hysterectomized women alone might account for women overtaking men in heart disease. I especially love the line "the uterine advantage."

All that money spent on

All that money spent on heart disease over the last 50 years or so. The great battle against the "evil" cholesterol. The huge increase in by-pass or "cabbage" surgeries and yet the heart death rate has been basically stagnate for 30 years. Heart disease is nothing but a cash cow with no end in sight.

Thanks so much for this

Thanks so much for this illuminating article and for telling the truth about something that has been obscured for so long. It's completely obvious and now proven statistically that removing a woman's uterus is literally heart-breaking. So much for the phony baloney that "she doesn't need it anymore."

I elected not to have a

I elected not to have a hysterectomy. (I am glad I chose not to have one.) I had an ablation to stop some of the bleeding. There was a lot of pain in my back afterwards and I was still very anemic. Someone suggested acupuncture. He never said he would get rid of the fibroids but over time they disappeared. In acupuncture lingo, tumors are a stagnation of energy. So by running energy though the tumors via acupuncture, they went away, not overnight it took about a year.

Response to Yes, female

Response to Yes, female hormones provide β€œBut after age 65, the risk of heart disease in men and women is essentially identical, precisely because female hormones are no longer active.” In fact, the ovaries continue to produce hormones all of a woman’s life, there is no age when the ovaries cease to function. The climacteric ovary as a functional gonadotropin-driven androgen-producing gland Fertil Steril 1994:62:20-7 Preservation of the Ovary: A reevaluation, Carcia, Celso-Ramon et al Fertil Steril 42:510, 1984 Endocrine Function of the Postmenopausal Ovary: Concentration of Androgens and Estrogens in Ovarian and Peripheral Vein Blood Judd, Howard L. et al J of Clinical Endoctinology and Metabolism Vol 39, 1974

Retired, The research

Retired, The research documenting the effect of hysterectomy on the incidence of cardiovascular disease that has been reported in the last three decades remains valid today. There have been more recent articles that reiterate the findings cited in the above article, but their findings are obviously not new. We could save millions of dollars on more research by heeding the results of the studies that demonstrated the damage caused by the significant increased incidence in cardiovascular disease in hysterectomized and castrated women. However the biggest benefit would accrue to the third of all women who, if told that hysterectomy increases their risk of heart disease three-fold, would most likely choose to keep their female organs in their bodies, where they will provide structural, sexual, and heart protective functions life-long. The time to stop damaging women was when these studies were published decades ago. But it’s never too late to stop a harmful practice. But it’s never too late to stop performing a harmful surgery, and it’s never too late to inform women of the consequences so that they can make a truly informed decision about hysterectomy and castration. Many people shrink from using the word castration because they don’t understand that it is the medically correct word for removal of the female gonads, the ovaries. But we must use the medically correct words so that women understand the important life-long effects of removing the female organs.

What else would one expect

What else would one expect in a country where health care is bases on the profit motive? A few years ago there was a vogue among doctors for removing gall bladders. I think they ran out of utereres to take out.

I have a friend who teaches

I have a friend who teaches anatomy at a medical school. He said they normally use 24-25 human cadavers each year that were donated for medical education. But they need twice as many female cadavers as male cadavers. The reason is that approximately 50% of their specimens have had a hysterectomy, oophorectomy, and so forth.

C'mon now. You don't really

C'mon now. You don't really want to deprive these poor doctors of their income stream...

great article.Β  do you have

great article.Β  do you have any idea how much illness in general is iatrogenic? it boggles my mind as a physician how medicine is practiced by others. it seems many docs forget about the the oath they take at med school graduation: first, do no harm.

I knew it. My gynecologist

I knew it. My gynecologist has been suggesting that I have a hysterectomy for years now, ever since my fibroids got bigger. While I am occasionally anemic, this is easily managed with iron supplements. Other than anemia and a very large uterus, I have no problems. I always felt that the uterus did more than just sit there preparing for a baby. It shocks me that this information has been around since 1982. So glad I didn't give in to the advice.

You know once in a while

You know once in a while women get uterine cancers. I did. I have run across Nora Coffey's work before. It's pretty depressing for those of us who really had no choice. I try to avoid it as best I can. I question her work appearing here in Truthout. I also question, as a woman who has had her uterus etc. removed, the huge number of these surgeries, many by male physicians. The after math can be devastating. Women should not do it without careful thought and second and even third opinions. But Nora Coffey is not the person I would choose as my spokes woman.

According to the CDC, the

According to the CDC, the incidence of cancer in the uterus, cervix, and ovaries is identical to the incidence of cancer in the penis, testicles, and prostate. Although the facts about hysterectomy are frightening, even if a woman has cancer she can't be said to have given informed consent without first being provided with the information available at the HERS Foundation.

@Rick Schweikert (not

@Rick Schweikert (not verified) I am sorry if I was unclear. I agree that there are too many hysterectomies overall for a myriad of reasons. The surgery is treated as no big deal by the medical establishment and it is a big deal. But I was not arguing that women with cancer should consult the HERS Foundation web site. Indeed, the last thing a woman with uterine cancer needs to do is get her information from the HERS Foundation. Oh by the way, my mom just died of a uterine cancer. So, speaking for myself and for my mom, the HERS Foundation is not the place to go for information about cancer treatment. Cancer treatment for uterine cancers is crude to say the least. But then cancer treatment is crude anyway you look at it.

Whether the presence of

Whether the presence of cancer has been confirmed or not, regardless of the type of treatment chosen, the information that is requisite to informed consent regarding the well-documented consequences of hysterectomy is available from the HERS Foundation in their "Female Anatomy: the Functions of the Female Organs" video on their website. HERS does not recommend treatment. Many thousands of women--whether they've already been hysterectomized or they've been told they need one--have appreciated the fact that this information, which their doctor denied them, is available to them.

Thank God for Nora Coffey!

Thank God for Nora Coffey! I had a hysterectomy strongly recommended to me by a doctor selling the cancer scare to me. I tod her I would never maim myself out of fear because I had faith in God. Thank God I did, because not only did I recover my health but I lived to find Nora Coffey's site and learn the truth. I was shocked and appalled and I say God Bless Nora Coffey for trying to help me and so many other women learn the truth. I thank God every day that I did not make the mistake of trusting a doctor. I would have regretted it for the rest of my life like so many other women.

To the retired doctor. It

To the retired doctor. It seems you are more interested in keeping the status quo (over a half a million unnecessary hysterectomies performed every year and the subsequent damage to women) while ignoring the fact that doctors have known for 30 years that it increases cardiovascular disease, yet never told even ONE woman. I can guarantee that there is not one woman on this earth that was told the removal of her uterus and/or ovaries would increase her risk for heart attacks. No woman would agree to this surgery if that was the case. That is why it's been well hidden. Thank you Nora Coffey for bringing the truth to light.

To Anonymous who said: "You

To Anonymous who said: "You know once in a while women get uterine cancers. I did. I have run across Nora Coffey's work before. It's pretty depressing for those of us who really had no choice. I try to avoid it as best I can. I question her work appearing here in Truthout." It's not Nora Coffey's work that is depressing, it's the truth that is depressing. It is unfortunate you had cancer, and I'm sorry for that, but that would be the only justification for this barbaric surgery, but instead doctors are doing this to healthy women at alarming rates. Nora Coffey is one of the few people who are bringing out the truth about this. It's time we as women come together to fight this.

Jeanne, one easy way "women

Jeanne, one easy way "women [can] come together to fight this" is to visit the HERS website hersfoundation dot org, watch the "Female Anatomy Video," tell your friends about it, and then click on the tab at the top of the home page that says "Sign The Petition." Join women everywhere who are saying, "This thing must stop!"

Nora W. Coffey has also

Nora W. Coffey has also published a new book, called THE H WORD: WHAT GYNECOLOGY DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW, which is available at http://hersfoundation.org/hword/.