Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheanie]

I remarked to a friend of my mum's yesterday how agile she was for her age at 87. She said she thought it was the HRT she'd been taking for 30 years - Premarin only as she's had a hysterectomy. Her GP took her off it 2 years ago, citing cardiac risk. She's been feeling terrible since, even having hot flushes. I said I'd try and find her some evidence to help her argue with her GP to get back on it or another type of oestrogen. I'm doing some research on this now, but if anyone can help, I and she would much appreciate it. I think whatever the evidence is, at 87, surely quality of life is the most important thing! But we do need that evidence for her GP......

My mum btw was taken off the same HRT when she was about 60. She's overweight, has had two mini strokes and is costing the NHS a packet one way or another. Her friend is as fit as a fiddle. So, if this is a way for the NHS to save money, it's way off base.

[Dancinggirl]

I know a lady who is now 93 and as far I know she is still on HRT - she is amazing, still works on occasion, she is very active and hasn't lost any height.   I know she was on HRT at the age of 83 because, at that time, I had been off HRT because of all the scares in the press -  when I mentioned to her how awful I was feeling she very firmly told me to go back to the doctors and insist on going back on HRT.
I do know that this lady was under the supervision of a private gynaecologist so was able to pay to have the treatment she needed.
I'm afraid we often have to pay for a good quality of life.   
DG x

[Joaniepat]

It just makes me so furious reading this, especially in conjunction with an earlier post today from a lady whose 91 year old mother has only just now been given treatment for vaginal atrophy from which she has suffered for many years.

Your friend really needs to insist that she gets her oestrogen back, if being without is making her feel so ill. What about asking for transdermal oestrogen, with which there is no cardiac risk? Oral oestrogen goes through the liver, which produces clotting factors,  whereas transdermal goes straight into the bloodstream. There is NO cardiac risk with transdermal delivery such as patches or gel.

I'd be inclined to ask this GP to cite chapter and verse for his evidence that there is cardiac risk anyway, rather than putting the onus on the patient. What is it with these doctors? They are supposed to make you feel better, not worse. And if this man can produce any studies at all that show oestrogen therapy is detrimental or otherwise to those in the nintieth decade I'd be mighty impressed, because I'm damned sure there aren't any.

Rant over.

JP x

[Sheanie]

I know a lady who is now 93 and as far I know she is still on HRT - she is amazing, still works on occasion, she is very active and hasn't lost any height.   I know she was on HRT at the age of 83 because, at that time, I had been off HRT because of all the scares in the press -  when I mentioned to her how awful I was feeling she very firmly told me to go back to the doctors and insist on going back on HRT.
I do know that this lady was under the supervision of a private gynaecologist so was able to pay to have the treatment she needed.
I'm afraid we often have to pay for a good quality of life.   
DG x

My mum's friend said she put up quite a fight but the GP wasn't having it. I've suggested that if all else fails, she should go to a private doctor. But she's an OAP!!! Should she have to pay of preventative healthcare when my mum gets all sorts of help for the things that are wrong with her.... that probably wouldn't be if she'd been allowed to take HRT! It's so short sighted of the NHS.

[Sheanie]

It just makes me so furious reading this, especially in conjunction with an earlier post today from a lady whose 91 year old mother has only just now been given treatment for vaginal atrophy from which she has suffered for many years.

Your friend really needs to insist that she gets her oestrogen back, if being without is making her feel so ill. What about asking for transdermal oestrogen, with which there is no cardiac risk? Oral oestrogen goes through the liver, which produces clotting factors,  whereas transdermal goes straight into the bloodstream. There is NO cardiac risk with transdermal delivery such as patches or gel.

I'd be inclined to ask this GP to cite chapter and verse for his evidence that there is cardiac risk anyway, rather than putting the onus on the patient. What is it with these doctors? They are supposed to make you feel better, not worse. And if this man can produce any studies at all that show oestrogen therapy is detrimental or otherwise to those in the nintieth decade I'd be mighty impressed, because I'm damned sure there aren't any.

Rant over.

JP x

I did suggest she ask for transdermal instead as I remembered that was safe..... but not why at the time. I do now. Thanks for the reminder. I need to give her some evidence that it there's no cardiac risk.

I also couldn't remember whether there was a cardiac risk with Premarin. I know/think??? there's a risk of stroke/blood clots.... 

Back to my books!

[Maryjane]

Absolutely ridiculous to take her off of it.

Buy oestrogen Matters book by Avrum Blummin.

You can stay on HRT till the day you die it's her choice, no Premarin not the best however “if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it”

The irony is oestrogen protests the heart, bones & brain. 

[Dorothy]

I used to work for a man who had to go privately to get the treatment he wanted because it carried an increased risk of dying younger.  He was 85... 

I do wonder if, rather than the health risks involved, it is simply a matter of saving money - elderly patients aren't seen as worth the expense of medication. 

[Sheanie]

I used to work for a man who had to go privately to get the treatment he wanted because it carried an increased risk of dying younger.  He was 85... 

I do wonder if, rather than the health risks involved, it is simply a matter of saving money - elderly patients aren't seen as worth the expense of medication.

That's exactly what she and I both though. It's about saving money. But preventative care must be more cost effective than the alternative.

[Sheanie]

Absolutely ridiculous to take her off of it.

Buy oestrogen Matters book by Avrum Blummin.

You can stay on HRT till the day you die it's her choice, no Premarin not the best however “if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it”

The irony is oestrogen protests the heart, bones & brain.

Thank you! I'll do that now.

[jaycee]

I am 76 and my Dr let me go back on HRT 2 years ago, he told me he has patients much older than me still on HRT and agrees that quality of life matters more , he is great

[CLKD]

Ask for her to be referred to a menopause clinic?  Did the GP refer her to a Cardiologist?  Is he reading old 'research'?

Also, what does it matter at 85 for goodness sake: something is going to carry all of us off - go back and state Quality of Life is more important than worrying about age - which is after all, a number.  I can't find anything legally that states when 'old age' actually begins, due to ageism Laws - but insurance companies etc. and many GPs, feel that if a patient reaches a certain age then they have the right to stop treatments. 

Let us know how you get on!  Also, a letter to the Minister of Health?  British Menopause Society, Dr Nick Paney .........

[Sgtvhilts]

OMG that is truly disgraceful.
What on earth was the ‘rational' for doing that. Whatever happened to ‘if it ain't broke......
My Nan was ‘diagnosed with “dangerously high cholesterol “, and was told needed to start treatment immediately......to prevent future health problems. she was 93!!!! LOL, needless to say she didn't take it.
Her sister was diagnosed with ‘Liver cancer' at the age of 97!!! They were all over her like a rash, wanting to give chemo and surgical intervention- she again refused, told them pretty much to clear off , lived relatively comfortably for a year.
Whatever happened to informed consent, your mam knows what she is doing and what she wants.
I think the best way forward is either to see another GP, or pay to see someone who will give you what you need.

[Dorothy]

I think the health system has gone mad - at one end, people in their 90s are being pressured into courses of action to extend their lives, even if it means quality of life will drop.  At the other end, I know someone in his 30s with bowel cancer who was told he would be given palliative care - there was 'no point' treating the cancer, because treatment would only extend life by 3 years.  And this was a guy with young children who was desperate to last long enough for his kids to have memories of their dad!

[CLKD]

Sometimes cancer treatment can be awful- if patients may have to spend more time in Hospital than with families  which aren't good memories for young children.  There is a post code lotted for treatment in the UK though 

[Dorothy]

Sometimes cancer treatment can be awful- if patients may have to spend more time in Hospital than with families  which aren't good memories for young children.  There is a post code lotted for treatment in the UK though 

I know - I've had a couple of friends who've said no to further treatment as they'd rather a shorter & better quality life.  They should still be given a choice.  Actually, this man fought for treatment and had several good years, meaning his children now have lots of happy memories of doing stuff with their dad (youngest was 2 at diagnosis, so that made a HUGE difference in memories for that child) 

It wasn't quality of life they were worried about, it was that they thought there was 'no point' (their words) treating someone who could not be cured.