Recent headlines in The Guardian proclaimed that 'a new medical procedure could delay menopause by 20 years'. The procedure involves surgically removing ovarian tissue from a woman while she is young and preserving it cryogenically. When the woman is older, the tissue can be surgically re-implanted. Consequently, the young and revived tissue will produce and release the hormones necessary to delay menopause.
This procedure has been routinely used for about two decades for girls and young women undergoing cancer treatment that may render them infertile, giving them the prospect of having children where their cancer would otherwise have precluded it. The difference in this latest announcement is that the procedure is being applied to otherwise healthy women.
In fact, its vendors (and I use the term advisedly) are spruiking its health benefits for women. The procedure will apparently alleviate serious health complaints such as heart conditions and osteoporosis that are linked to menopause. But it can also delay common symptoms of menopause such as hot flushes, low mood, and anxiety. The treatment would, according to its promoters, save the national health budget by reducing treatment costs associated with menopause-related conditions and symptoms.
Additionally, as an expansion of the original purpose of the procedure, women could extend their fertile years if they have delayed having children to suit career or other life plans.
As with most advances in medical technologies and procedures, there is always a good story to be told. Giving women control over their fertility where it has been impaired due to serious illness is a wonderful achievement.
However, in focusing on the 'benefits' of delaying menopause, the promoters' description of the procedure presents menopause as a necessarily detrimental condition. Consequently, ovarian cell transplantation is sold as a prophylactic against disease and symptoms that may not even occur or that may have minimal effect on the woman involved.
Notably, the procedure is being sold by its promoters — an IVF company — at the hefty price of between £7000 and £11,000. So, while the 'discovery' is possibly newsworthy, the story must be read as a sales pitch. Maybe the 'benefit' for the national health budget is arguable — but if the health budget were to underwrite the cost of the procedure, then the company marketing it would certainly stand to benefit. There are few qualms about the procedure's originally intended purpose, but the new application barely stands up to scrutiny.
"Instead of 'curing' menopause, we should