The post raises the question of whether, in women with various risk factors for osteoporosis, it makes sense to take protective drugs pretty much forever, even though these may have side effects and may or may not be that effective.
This issue is somewhat close to my heart (as close as my ribcage anyway--hahahahaha! I love a dumb anatomy joke). I had a bone density scan a few years ago, and, indeed, my bones are less dense than the average woman my age.
They call it osteopenia, which is not osteoporosis, but is--well, like I said, less dense than average for the age. I think that's all it means.
I felt suddenly fragile for a while after I found out, as if I should be afraid to lift boxes or something, but it doesn't actually mean anything right now, for me just sitting here with my slightly-less-dense skeleton.
But risk factors! Bristling with them!
I was a subject in a research study for a potential drug to reverse, prevent or otherwise treat bone loss (I can no longer recall the details, although I have the paperwork somewhere), and I had to wonder: if it turned out this drug was effective for me, would I then feel I ought to keep taking it, assuming it made it onto the market?
As it happens, I either wound up in the control group, or else the drug didn't work that well, because there was no change in my bone density after the year of the study period. I was sort of relieved, in a way.
I don't want to take expensive medication for an imperceptible condition, but if it were an option, and could stave off some potential problem, maybe I'd think I should.
Whether or not we tend to be overmedicated in U.S. society is a valid question, I think, but complicated.
Well, enough self-centered musing about my skeleton. For now.
No comments:
Post a Comment