Two things come to mind. One is how the evidence is being translated into health care. For instance, we just did a review of clinical practice guidelines for health care clinicians. Clinical practice guidelines are recommendations based on evidence. We just reviewed about 118 of them put out by the Canadian Medical Association. Maybe two-thirds actually looked at sex and gender issues, but very few had recommendations about how you should treat men and women. In the Netherlands, they had a public campaign that was launched a few months ago saying, “Treat me like a lady”. Some people may not like the word “lady”, but the point is, does your doctor, nurse, physio, naturopath, or whatever truly know the difference based on evidence, how you could be treated differently?
Men have breasts. One in ten cases of breast cancer occurs in men. Men don't have ovaries. That is an interesting point. Every man will die with prostate cancer, because with time you develop it. It is not aggressive. Ovarian cancer is still relatively rare compared to those. Are the decisions being made on a population basis? What are the arguments that are being made? There is certainly what we call ring-fenced funding, which is when Parliament says, for instance, we need more spending for dementia. We could respond only to what is being allocated to us, whether it is in the open competition or whether there is some strategic initiative.
Does that answer your question better?