
Women face medical gaslighting for chronic pain, experts say
For people with chronic gynecological pain conditions, pain can be constant, making everyday activities like sitting, riding a bicycle and even wearing underwear extremely uncomfortable. For many of these people — most of whom identify as women — sexual intercourse and routine pelvic exams are unbearable.
Endometriosis and vulvodynia, or chronic genital pain, are common gynecological conditions that can cause severe pain. They each affect about 1 in 10 American women.
Yet many women face skepticism and gaslighting in health care settings when they seek care for this type of pain.
READ MORE: Ovarian cysts can be painful when they burst. When do you need to see a doctor?
We know this well through our research on social cognition and on how people with misunderstood health conditions manage difficult conversations with their doctors and family, as well as through volunteer work alongside people living with these conditions.
We've consistently found that medical gaslighting around chronic gynecological pain is a complex societal problem, fueled by holes in medical research and training.
A 2024 study of patients who went to a clinic for vulvovaginal pain — pain experienced in the external female genitals and vagina –- found that 45% of these patients had been told that they 'just needed to relax more' and 39% were made to feel that they were 'crazy.' A staggering 55% had considered giving up on seeking care.
These results echo what one of us — Elizabeth Hintz — found in her 2023 meta-synthesis: Female patients with chronic pain conditions frequently hear this 'it's all in your head' response from doctors.
Another study followed patients in two different major US cities who were seeking care for vulvovaginal pain. The researchers found that most patients saw multiple clinicians but never received a diagnosis. Given the challenges of seeking medical care, many patients turn to social media sources like Reddit for support and information.
These studies, among others, illustrate how people with these conditions often spend years going to clinician after clinician seeking care and being told their pain is psychological or perhaps not even real. Given these experiences, why do patients keep seeking care?
'Let me describe the pain that would drive me to try so many different doctors, tests and treatments,' a patient with vulvovaginal pain said to her doctor. For her, sex 'is like taking your most sensitive area and trying to rip it apart.'
'I can now wear any pants or underwear that I want with no pain,' said another patient after successful treatment. 'I never realized how much of a toll the pain took on my body every day until it was gone.'
Many patients worldwide experience medical gaslighting — a social phenomenon where a patient's health concerns are not given appropriate medical evaluation and are instead downplayed, misattributed or dismissed outright.
Medical gaslighting is rooted in centuries of gender bias in medicine.
Women's reproductive health issues have long been dismissed as psychological or 'hysterical.' Genital and pelvic pain especially has been misattributed to psychological rather than biological causes: A century ago, Freudian psychoanalysts incorrectly believed that female sexual pain came from psychological complexes like penis envy.
These historical views help shed light on why these symptoms are still not taken seriously today.
In addition to the physical toll of untreated pain, medical gaslighting can take a psychological toll. Women may become isolated when other people do not believe their pain. Some internalize this disbelief and can begin to doubt their own perceptions of pain and even their sanity.
This cycle of gaslighting compounds the burden of the pain and might lead to long-term psychological effects like anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress symptoms. For some, the repeated experience of being dismissed by clinicians erodes their sense of trust in the health care system. They might hesitate to seek medical attention in the future, fearing they will once again be dismissed.
Although some chronic gynecological pain conditions like endometriosis are gaining public attention and becoming better understood, these dynamics persist.
Part of the reason for the misunderstanding surrounding chronic gynecological pain conditions is the lack of research on them. A January report from the National Academies found that research on diseases disproportionately affecting women were underfunded compared with diseases disproportionately affecting men.
This problem has gotten worse over time. The proportion of funding from the National Institutes of Health spent on women's health has actually declined over the past decade. Despite these known disparities, in April the Trump administration threatened to end funding for the Women's Health Initiative, a long-running women's health research program, further worsening the problem.
READ MORE: The Women's Health Initiative has shaped women's health for over 30 years, but its future is uncertain
Without sustained federal funding for women's health research, conditions like endometriosis and vulvodynia will remain poorly understood, leaving clinicians in the dark and patients stranded.
As hard as it is for any female patient to have their pain believed and treated, gaining recognition for chronic pain is even harder for those who face discrimination based on class or race.
One 2016 study found that half of the white medical students surveyed endorsed at least one false belief about biological differences between Black and white patients, such as that Black people have physically thicker skin or less sensitive nerve endings than white people. The medical students and residents who endorsed these false beliefs also underestimated Black patients' pain and offered them less accurate treatment recommendations.
Studies show that women are more likely to develop chronic pain conditions and report more frequent and severe pain than men. But women are perceived as more emotional and thus less reliable in describing their pain than men. Consequently, female patients who describe the same symptoms as male patients are judged to be in less pain and are less likely to be offered pain relief, even in emergency settings and with female clinicians. Compared to male patients, female patients are more likely to be prescribed psychological care instead of pain medicine.
These lingering erroneous beliefs about gender and race are key reasons patients' pain is dismissed, misunderstood and ignored. The very real-life consequences for patients include delayed diagnosis, treatment and even death.
Correcting these problems will require a shift in clinical training, so as to challenge biased views about pain in women and racial minorities and to educate clinicians about common pain conditions like vulvodynia. Research suggests that medical training needs to teach students to better listen to patients' lived experiences and admit when an answer isn't known.
In the meantime, people navigating the health care system can take practical steps when encountering dismissive care.
They can educate themselves about chronic gynecological pain conditions by reading books like 'When Sex Hurts: Understanding and Healing Pelvic Pain' or educational information from trusted sources like the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health, the International Pelvic Pain Society and the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.
Although these steps do not address the roots of medical gaslighting, they can empower patients to better understand the medical conditions that could cause their symptoms, helping to counteract the effects of gaslighting.
READ MORE: Endometriosis pain leads to missed school and work in two-thirds of women with the condition, new study finds
If someone you know has experienced medical gaslighting and would like support, there are resources available.
Organizations like The Endometriosis Association and the National Vulvodynia Association offer support networks and information — like how to find knowledgeable providers. Additionally, connecting with patient advocacy groups like Tight Lipped can provide opportunities for patients to engage in changing the health care system.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Praxis' Epilepsy Treatment Shows Promise With Decreased Seizures
Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRAX) stock experienced a volatile trading session on Monday, after the company announced positive topline results from its Phase 2 RADIANT study evaluating vormatrigine in patients with focal onset seizures and generalized epilepsy. The stock initially surged on the news, but then reversed course and is currently trading down approximately 9%. The central nervous system (CNS) disorders-focused company said the topline results from the Phase 2 RADIANT study included data from 37 patients.'These findings build on our earlier clinical data showing a differentiated profile for vormatrigine as a fast-acting, no-titration, once-daily oral drug with no requirement to be taken with food, and a favorable DDI profile, all of which are unseen in ASMs currently in the market or in development,' said Marcio Souza, president and CEO of Praxis. In an investor presentation on the company website, Praxis noted that the trial showed a median seizure reduction of around 56.3%, with 60% of the patients achieving at least a 50% reduction in seizures. This positive outcome has encouraged the company to move forward with a Phase 2/3 trial, even though 23% of patients discontinued the study. 54% of patients achieved at least a 50% seizure reduction threshold in Week 1 and 67% in Week 8. In the last month of the dataset, 22% of the patients experienced a 100% reduction in seizure frequency. The company added that most adverse events were mild to moderate and transient. All severe and serious adverse events (AEs) were recovered and resolved. The investor presentation noted that the investigators had the option to reduce the dose of the background medication to manage AEs; when done (6 patients), no discontinuation was observed. The company said it is on track to complete the pivotal, 12-week POWER1 study in the fourth quarter of 2025 and, based on the results from RADIANT, it expects to initiate the POWER2 study shortly. On Monday, the company reported cash and investments of approximately $447 million and maintains a cash runway into 2028. In July, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation for Praxis Precision's relutrigine, a sodium channel functional state modulator for pediatric use for SCN2A and SCN8A developmental and epileptic encephalopathies (DEEs). The EMBOLD cohort 2 pivotal trial is on track for topline results in the first half of 2026, with NDA filing to follow. Praxis has recently initiated the EMERALD study investigating relutrigine broadly in DEEs. Price Action: PRAX stock is trading lower by 9.51% to $48.95 at last check Monday. Read Next:Photo via Shutterstock Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? This article Praxis' Epilepsy Treatment Shows Promise With Decreased Seizures originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.


Medscape
28 minutes ago
- Medscape
Ethics of Artificial Hydration and Nutrition In Dementia
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hi. I'm Art Caplan. I'm at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. I had a difficult case brought to me recently by someone who was trying to decide what to do with a patient with very bad dementia in terms of feeding. It's not the first time I've had this kind of case brought to me by physicians, and it probably won't be the last, but it remains a thorny, tough ethics quandary. I think everybody understands that there is a right — and we've had this affirmed since cases like Terri Schiavo or Nancy Cruzan — to not force artificial feeding (meaning by tube, in the nose, or in the stomach) or artificial hydration upon someone who doesn't want it. If you have the right to refuse treatment, it's been established — certainly in American law, and I would say by standards of care within the medical profession — that hydration and feeding, when they're done by mechanical means, tubes, or using artificial substances to supply nutrition, are medicine. As a medical intervention or a medical therapy, just like other interventions, such as dialysis or even refusing an amputation for a diabetic patient, the patient ultimately, if they're competent, has the right to refuse it. The challenge comes in the case that was presented to me. A woman, let's call her Mary Taylor, some years ago knew that she was at risk of getting Alzheimer's disease. She filled out her living will and discussed with her family that when she became demented, if she was unable to care for herself, if she couldn't recognize her family and friends, she did not want any medical interventions, including specifically hydration and nutrition. Sadly, she went through the course of declining and ended up at a nursing home. At the nursing home, the doctor who was treating her noticed that nurses were offering Mary food on a spoon and liquid on a spoon, that she was opening her mouth when the spoon was presented, and she was, if you will, eating and drinking. The physician, knowing that the family remembered this advance directive living will and knowing that they were the designated decision-makers, basically said stop the spoon-feeding. The nurses did not want to do it. They said it's ordinary care. It's not medical. It's just what you do as part of what one human being deserves from another human being — to offer them ordinary ways to drink water or to eat something. The case basically raises two tough ethics questions. Is feeding by spoon the same as medical intervention with artificial forms of hydration and nutrition? I believe it is. I believe that when you say 'no more food and nutrition,' it isn't just the equipment. I'll put it simply: It's who's on the end of the spoon. If nurses or doctors are feeding, it's medical. It's professional care, and you should be able to say no to that. Secondly, I do think if someone says 'I don't want to eat or drink anymore,' their intent and their values are clear. You could certainly rediscuss it with the family and say she seems to be accepting food and swallowing, and ask if that changes their mind or makes them think she might have decided differently. However, I think the wishes of the competent person, when they made the living will, are what should drive care if the person loses competency. They thought about it, they knew where they were headed, and I do think that's the value that ought to dominate thinking about whether we have to continue to try food and water for nutrition. Does that mean that you can't offer ice, lip balm, or other comfort means if someone is suffering because they're getting dehydrated and so on? Absolutely not. That isn't the same as feeding them. Here are some lessons to consider. It's important to pay attention when someone says they don't want food and water. Are nurses or anyone in a hospital or a nursing home trying to feed them anyway because they don't think of spoon-feeding as an artificial or medical intervention? I think they need education about that, and I think it's important to make sure that does not happen if that's what they said in their advance directives. I also believe advance directives and conversations with people, when they're competent or facing the potential loss of competency, should include discussions about whether they really mean everything, such as spoon-feeding or somebody offering you a glass of water. Is that included in what you are saying you do not want? We have to be thorough and comprehensive in making sure that we're clear so there really aren't disputes of what people did say no to and might say yes to if they no longer are able to tell us directly. I'm Art Caplan, at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. Thank you for watching.


Medscape
28 minutes ago
- Medscape
Three FDA-Approved Obesity Drugs That Aren't GLP-1s
This transcript has been edited for clarity. There are currently three FDA-approved oral medications for the long-term treatment of obesity that are not GLP-1 based. Alli or Xenical (generic name orlistat) was approved by the FDA in 1999. It works by inhibiting intestinal lipase and it reduces absorption of dietary fat by up to 30%. Common side effects are gastrointestinal and include fatty or oily stool, fecal urgency, and incontinence. The average placebo-subtracted weight loss is about 3.8%. Alli is the only FDA-approved medication available over the counter. Qsymia is a combination of phentermine and topiramate and was approved by the FDA in 2012. Phentermine is a sympathomimetic, and topiramate is a neurostabilizer that enhances GABA activity. Clinically, the combination pill enhances satiety, decreases appetite, and reduces binge eating behaviors. Common side effects are paresthesias, altered taste, tachycardia, irritability, hypertension, insomnia, and dry mouth. It is currently one of the most effective oral medications, with an average placebo-subtracted weight loss of 8.6%. Contrave is a combination pill of bupropion and naltrexone and was approved by the FDA in 2014. Bupropion is a norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor, and naltrexone is a mu opioid receptor antagonist. Clinically, it decreases appetite and cravings. The common side effects are nausea, vomiting, insomnia, constipation, dry mouth, diarrhea, and dizziness. The average placebo-subtracted weight loss is 4.8%.