The ethical and structural underpinnings of healthcare are outlined by bioethics. It decides whose autonomy is protected, whose bodies are used as study subjects, and whose suffering is acknowledged. Medicine has been male-biased for centuries, treating the female body as an afterthought to the full scope of human biology. The exclusion of women from clinical research and the system's inability to meet their distinct needs are just two examples of how this bias is still present in contemporary healthcare. 

This agenda unfolds through three disciplinary lenses within our project. Historically, we will investigate how the erroneous anatomical models and the slow acknowledgment of gendered health care needs have roots in medical bias. Political investigations will include the power structures that inform medical ethics-including whether women's claims on reproductive and technological autonomy have been truly empowering or just reproduced current hierarchies of power. The socio-economic discussion will zoom in on the financial and systemic claims provided to medical research funding and access.  

Bioethics is no abstract discipline but a battlefield for bodily autonomy and medical equalities. Through these forms of engagement, we challenge the established biases in health systems and fight for one that does not see women's bodies as exceptions but held up to the same standards of care and dignity as anyone else.  

Historical Lens: 

This historical approach to gender medicine seeks to examine the root causes of gender disparities in healthcare and its bioethical implications in the United States and India. We will be discussing our society's prevailing tendency to prioritize male research, leading to varying health outcomes an insufficient quality of care, and the minimization of female pain and symptoms.

Historically, women have been considered inferior to and an immature version of men. These instances persisted until the 19th century, when a cross sectional dimension of medicine began to be considered. This approach acknowledges the differences of symptoms, prevention and treatment of the same diseases between genders.  For example, heart disease was researched mainly in male patients, leading to limited knowledge of the adverse outcomes of heart disease in women. Although some advancements have since been made, there is still a significant gender bias that causes disparities in healthcare access and outcomes between men and women. Beliefs that have lead to  women's underrepresentation and misdiagnosis still persist and affect women's health today. 

Political Lens:

We wish to examine the debates and critiques surrounding technological advancements that claim to grant autonomy to women's bodies. The healthcare industry has evolved as we see in the historical aspect and is still influenced by the same structural problems and misogyny. Bioethics is rather a flag term concerning various biomedical as well as environmental issues which cannot be resolved independently by any one nation.  Rosemarie Tong, in her article Towards a feminist global ethics, takes into focus the idea of ‘non-colonial, non-imperialistic universalism’ which is according to her feminist bioethics. Alison Jaggar, a feminist bioethicist has insisted on looking into the moral critique of ideologies, practices, structures and systems which perpetuate oppression, ways to resist it economically, socially, culturally and morally desirable alternatives so the oppressed individuals could thrive. It will help in formulating an alternative or applicability of bioethics in the area of healthcare. The aim is to not limit oneself to reproduction but to consider beyond it through deconstructing the meta-narratives of healthcare, dismantling the surveillance on women’s bodies, the power dynamics which shape the dominant healthcare system which sees women’s bodies as ‘anomalies’ as well as the essentialist and reductionist view of bodies. 

Keeping these ideas in mind, we would like to cover the idea of bioethics as in relation to the mainstream ideas and the differences between universalist ideas of feminism and understanding the approach to rights based and care based idea of bioethics. We would like to understand the work while dealing with the politics of healthcare would be to revisit, and be inspired by the works of scholars like Sybil Shainwald, Simone De Beauvoir, Foucault and many others who have shed light upon bodily autonomy, medicalization and the deterministic views of gender. 

Socio-Economic Lens:

There are many contributing factors for why women go largely underrepresented in medicine. The patriarchal structure of economics means men often have more financial capital to invest in different ventures. Men are more likely to invest in issues they deem relevant, i.e. issues regarding men’s health. Moreover, men having significant social and political power gives men the ability to make decisions on women’s health. 

Women are considered less as candidates for medical research, the reason often cited is the menstrual cycle. Some doctors claim that the hormones in a woman’s body will affect the outcome of clinical trials, leading many trials to only consider the male body. This belief is largely unfounded, as both women and men go through hormonal cycles. Misconceptions like these contribute to a greater culture of women being left out of conversations regarding medicine.