or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Medical Nightmare!

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
Trust your doctor? This may change your mind. It should!



http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/L...al_errors.html




Frank
post #2 of 26
OMG! OMG! And the woman who was misdiagnosed with breast cancer, had a double mastectomy and THEN they discovered they switched her slides with another patients'? ARRRRRGGGHHH!

This is exactly the sort of situation where liability lawsuits should be used--and why they shouldn't be capped. That poor man has no penis or testicles because of a faulty dr.'s decision. What I cannot fathom is that the dr never discussed the possibility of removal with the man before the surgery.

Unbelievable....
post #3 of 26
Quote:
Originally posted by gurumama
OMG! OMG! And the woman who was misdiagnosed with breast cancer, had a double mastectomy and THEN they discovered they switched her slides with another patients'? ARRRRRGGGHHH!
And what about the woman who DOES have cancer? Does she know now? Did they tell her in time to help her?
post #4 of 26
I feel like I've been running around MDC and clouding the issue lately, but I feel like it's only being taken seriously because it's his penis.
How many women lose their uteruses or cervixes or breasts because they're not neccessary. They are arguably just as neccesary as this man's penis. I feel awful reading that story. What a terrible terrible thing.

I think I'm still stewing about the 15 year old case here. A pedophile kidnapped a little boy, cut off his penis and left him for dead, strangled. He was found and saved. There was literally 100s of thousands of dollars donated to him. The same week, a infant girl was raped. She also would require many many reconstructive surgeries. She was also in danger of dying from her injuries. Her fund received $26K. I guess I hope this case does more for the world than make men shut their legs in sympathy and refuse to go to the doctor.
post #5 of 26
Slightly Off-Topic :
Quote:
Originally posted by MelKnee
And what about the woman who DOES have cancer? Does she know now? Did they tell her in time to help her?
Cancer research/treatment has made very little advancement in the last thirty years (ie: they have not progressed in cancer treatment) except for earlier detection so they can begin their regimen of attempting to poison cancerous cells sooner ....

Along with the other cells in your body
post #6 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Apricot
I feel like it's only being taken seriously because it's his penis.
How many women lose their uteruses or cervixes or breasts because they're not neccessary. They are arguably just as neccesary as this man's penis.


Apricot:

I'm sorry to disagree with you but you don't understand. A man has an intense emotional investment in his penis. It is part of his identity and the core of his sexual function. A woman without a uterus or cervix can still have sex. I can personally attest to this as several women I have dated did not have either and as far as either of us could tell, there was no difference. This man is totally unable to ever have sexual relations with his wife again. Breasts can be surgically reconstructed but a penis can not. This man will never be able to urinate naturally again. The equivalent for a woman would be for her to lose her vagina and clitoris.

Both of the stories of the boy and the girl are very sad. However, I assume the girl will retain some sexual function while the boy will not. Hopefully the girl will still have her reproductive functions while the boy will have none.

From what I have read, both the boy's and the man's loss is far more serious and damaging than the examples you have cited.




Frank
post #7 of 26
Surely they can transplant a new penis on the man. It wouldnt be the same as his old one.
I watched a show the other day on genital reconstruction, and there was this one person who had a penis made out of, hm it was either a toe or a finger. Any way it was fully function could get erect and pee and everything. So if thats possible I dont see why they can t get him a new one.
post #8 of 26
Quote:
Originally posted by Apricot


I think I'm still stewing about the 15 year old case here. A pedophile kidnapped a little boy, cut off his penis and left him for dead, strangled. He was found and saved. There was literally 100s of thousands of dollars donated to him. The same week, a infant girl was raped. She also would require many many reconstructive surgeries. She was also in danger of dying from her injuries. Her fund received $26K. I guess I hope this case does more for the world than make men shut their legs in sympathy and refuse to go to the doctor.
That makes me feel like going out and killing someone - sick bastards!
post #9 of 26
Quote:
Originally posted by Last Minute
Slightly Off-Topic : Cancer research/treatment has made very little advancement in the last thirty years (ie: they have not progressed in cancer treatment) except for earlier detection so they can begin their regimen of attempting to poison cancerous cells sooner ....

Along with the other cells in your body
Oh, I completely agree with you. My dh's aunt was diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer 10 years ago. She declined conventional "treatment". Instead, she went on a healing journey visiting several medicine wheels throughout the west. When she returned, she was cancer free and has been since. But, she would not have been able to do that if she hadn't been told she had the cancer.
post #10 of 26
The little boy did have his penis reconstructed.

I have to say I am appalled at your view Frank. I still get the sense that a man's penis is sacred, but as long as a woman has a hole she should be fine. However, I really think that this is something we're just going to disagree on. I'm not frowning as I say it, I don't think that is coming through in the words.
post #11 of 26
When a uterus is removed, a lot is affected by that. The woman's hormones go askew, other internal organs shift around, including the bladder- what's to hold the bladder up high now? Routine hysterectomies were a serious problem for women- that's why they aren't routine any more.

Jackie
post #12 of 26
Thread Starter 

OK Class, Gather around . . . . .

It's time for a little Anatomy 101 and Sex Education 101.

A mans penis can not be replaced. Period. First of all. half of it or more is inside the body and extends almost to the anal orifice. This man had all of that removed. He also had his testicles and scrotum removed.

The penis has a unique vascular structure that is not found anywhere else on the body and that vascular structure can not be replicated or moved from another part of the body. This vascular structure is what makes an erection possible and when damaged, results in impotency. This man will never have another erection regardless of what happens to him.

Second, the glans, frenulum and mucosal foreskin has unique nerves that trigger his orgasm. That nerve structure is not found anywhere else in his body so it can not be grafted nor replicated. A toe certainly does not have these specialized nerves All of that was taken from this man.

Third, the man's testicles were removed. The testicles are the main source of testosterone that fuels his sex drive. Even if he did still have a penis, he would have no sex drive to use it. Ever heard of chemical castration for sex offenders? The drug they use stops the body from manufacturing testosterone to kill their sex drive. It is also unlikely that if he did still have a penis that he would be able to get and erection. With the testicles gone, there is also no sperm. I suspect that since this man had bladder cancer his bladder and prostrate gland is also gone. The prostrate gland manufactures seminal fluid and even if he still had a penis, his orgasms would be a mere shadow of normal.

Now, they may have reconstructed something that had a slight resemblance of a penis but it was in no way functional as a sex organ. The best that could be hoped for would be a "hose" so that he could stand to urinate. It would not get an erection, it would not have an orgasm and it would not deliver sperm.

As to the women that had hysterectomies . . . . . . I have dated several. Right off the top of my head, can think of three and I think there could probably be more. I just get confused about which ones had their tubes tied and which had hysterectomies. It is easy to tell the difference when you get intimate. They didn't even have to tell me. Every single one of these women was very sexual, had strong multiple orgasms and was satisfied not to have to worry about pregnancy and not have the monthly hassle. Not a single one of them was unhappy about their hysterectomy and had no urinary, sexual or other problems that I ever heard about. This may sound like the women that assert that every single circumcised man they have ever known was happy with his circumcision. It is very different in that every one of these women had an active sex life prior to their hysterectomies and the vast majority of circumcised men have not. The women would know the effect on their sex life and if their hysterectomies were damaging, they would be well aware of it. However, on the other hand, I do know that there are some women who do not enjoy sex as much after a hysterectomy or have no enjoyment at all. But, they do have the equipment for physical intimacy and can still satisfy their lover's needs. It is not possible for this man to do even that little bit.

I don't know what percentage of women suffer sexual debilitation from hysterectomy but it doesn't seem to be a majority. However, 100% of men who have had their penis and testicles removed will suffer 100% sexual debilitation and doesn't even have the non-functional equipment to satisfy their lover. To that extent and from my own sexual experience with women who have had hysterectomies, I would say that this man suffered a far worse fate than any woman who has had a hysterectomy. That's only from the functional standpoint and not from the psychological damage that has been done to him. The psychological damage would be intense.

The fact that this was a mistake, an oops!, only makes it worse. At least there is some medical reason for a hysterectomy with an intended benefit. What happened to this man was simply carelessness and unconcern.




Frank
post #13 of 26
Frank... a woman can "satisfy her lover's needs" with a steak... raw or cooked... that is not sexual fulfillment or physical wholeness nor is it wholistic atitudes toward's a person's body ... if you want to act that way- a man could satisfy me with a thumb and a tounge... but that would not mean that his penis is a worthless and dangeous appendage which could knock me up. I'm afraid that your view of the female body at this point is a little too fractured and if Doctors have opinions similar to yours- that all we need is a hole to stick it in and

" not to have to worry about pregnancy and not have the monthly hassle. "

it's not wonder so many offer to butcher these beautiful organs out of our bodies as if they are worthless burdens... this is our WOMB you are talking about!!!... and that 28 day hassle happens to be a fantastic unifying tie with our moon and earth tides.. a tie that I for one, would not take lightly to be seperated from.

I don't ever feel the need to rate body parts against each other or their value to the person who owns them, your desire to rate damages done and the things you have said about women's bodies are highly offensive to me, maybe not to the women you knew with hysterectomies... but to me- I find them very insulting...

I still haven't read the link...

Losing your reproductive organs is a tragedy- regardless of the sexual use someone else can wring out of what remains.

For some people, the ability to have children is something we treasure. For some people, the intense experience of knowing our own uterus in the throes of labor might be the most intense sexual experience we have in a lifetime... might add up to more than every casual fling and prick of every dildo we ever knew. You think we don't KNOW our innersex organ just because we can't see it? Any women who has gone through labor and birthed a child with the amazing involuntary work of this fantastic life giving miracle of muscles and blood and energy transfer... we KNOW it... when you are eight months pregnnt- that womb takeup almost your whole being... it's not just a little knot... and in general the moms here... we are women who LOVE this... we don't fear it like a lot of women- this is the moment we live for- this is a wonderfultime to know and appreciate our bodies. Women who have had this type of faith and love in their own birth experience, trust in their bodies... and have had their bodies- deliver... you just don't insult my uterus... my uterus gave me my children. It's is a a gift from god. it is not a trash for a doctor to casually kick aside ith superficial judements of what is sexually important on a woman's body for her to be a woman.

Just letting you in on this because you probably like to be well recieved by pregnant women if you want your message heard. You can't tell a pregnant women that multiple orgasms cancel out the value of a uterus. F multiple orgasms... all the orgasms in the world never gave me a child. I have never loved an orgasm like I do my baby.
post #14 of 26

oh well

It's been YEARS since I trusted a doctor. This just confirms my feelings about the medical profession (bunch of arrogant so and so's). It's really priceless that after that woman had both breasts removed needlessly the hospital waited to issue an apology until she had appeared on national television. Sheesh - the jerks!
post #15 of 26
Thread Starter 
Well, this thread certainly didn’t take the path I expected. The point of the message is the total lack of value accorded to male sexuality and the members here have amply illustrated my point.

I am surprised that the discussion immediately turned to how terrible the women were done and all of the discussion has minimized what has happened to this man. That is offensive to me because it says my sexuality is not worth a plug nickel. To assert that a man’s toe can be cut off and stitched to his crotch and he will be good as new tells me that a man’s sexuality is worthless and as long as he has something he can aim to pee, everything is fine.

Let me give you an idea of what happened to this man in terms you can understand. If this same thing happened to one of you women, this is what would have been removed:

(1)The bladder
(2) The urethra
(3)The ovaries
(4)The fallopian tubes
(5)The uterus
(6)The cervix
(7)The vagina
(8)The labia majora
(9)The labia minora
(10)The clitoral hood
(11)The clitoris
(12)The ability to reproduce
(13)The ability to engage in sex
(14)The ability to urinate normally
(15)In other words, everything

Essentially, all this man has left of his urinary tract and sexual function is a scar in his crotch and you want to compare it to a hysterectomy or mastectomy? Oh, Puleeze!

To assert that a man’s penis is nothing more than a hose to deliver urine and sperm and can be successfully replicated with no loss of function simply by cutting off his toe and stitching it to his crotch amply illustrates the cavalier attitude about men’s sexuality that allows circumcision to continue in this country. It shows that a man has no perceived rights to his organs and body and that his sexuality is of no importance. As long as he can pee and shoot off, everything’s just hunky dory. I am very disappointed in the attitude shown here at this place that is all about men’s rights and genital integrity for all. What happened?????????




Frank
post #16 of 26

Frank

I didn't mean to minimize that man's loss, although I only responded with my feelings about the medical community's attitudes. I agree that what was done to that man is horrible. I don't have words to describe it....

It's a terrible loss, and there is nothing that will be able to restore his loss of sexuality. And his wife also suffered a huge loss. I am appalled that the surgeon would take it upon himself to perform such a drastic surgery without discussing it with the patient. It's not as if the man would die on the operating table if his penis weren't immediately removed! The plan should have been to get a pathology report while the man recovered from the ORIGINAL surgery and then have a discussion of options when the report came back. It just makes me sick that patients can be taken advantage of like that. I hope that man and his wife sue big and win big - although their loss can never be recovered - but the doctor and hospital need to get the message.
post #17 of 26
Frank- put away your violin... I said nothing of the sort! I agree that losing your sex organ is a tragedy... if it was necessary... and if it was not- then it was criminal assault. I never once made light of what happened to that man (at that point I had not even read the story) my post was ONLY directed toward the very callous and disrespectful remarks you had made about the sex organs of women.

In fact, you seemed hesitant to even recognize the uterus as the sex organ of a woman, and seened to have a very vagina-centric idea of what makes a woman an woman.

I said there is no need to make comparitve judgements of people's body parts or the assumed value those parts have to the owner or loser of said parts.

You asserted that the fact that past lovers had experienced multiple orgasms after having lost their uterus was proof that the loss of a uterus was not something that should be considered as a grave loss.

You reduced the femenine sexuality and self worth and physical integrity to A: the ability to have orgasms and B. "Satisfy" (whatever THAT means) a man.

You seem to have taken a stance that HUMAN loss at the handsof an arrogant medical system could not be a shared appreciation for those of us reading this thread, but that any mention of losses that women suffer at a greater and DELIBERATE frequency was an attempt to undermine the loss of the man, or to undermine the effect you had desired to produce in the idea that the only callous disregard of the medical world is directed at MEN, when the truth is, women ALSO suffer and acknowlidging this does noot diminish your point one bit.

But apparently this is a battle of the boys against the girls? I woud prefer it to be a battle of the people who value physical integrity against the people who disrespect it.

You statements about women's sex organs were disrespectful.

I told you that I found that attitude toward my body to be highly offensive. My sexuality is much more than orgasms or a wet hole. Even the fact that I have a scar on my uterus which was made by the LIFESAVING knife of a surgeon bothers me... I have never seen my uterus, I have never seen the scar... and without the surgery I would have bled to death and my child would have starved of oxygen deprivation trapped inside my uterus by our placenta which was blocking the exit... even having had that experience and knowing it was necessary and absolutely appropriate surgery- I still am not happy about having my body cut into with a knife, or the idea of the scars inside me and on the outside as well. I could not lose my uterus without experiencing a profound loss. Both physical and emotional.

Who are you to say whose loss is worse?

That man- he lost his penis is a terrible medical mistake. He had cancer, the doctor thought he was dying. the doctor was wrong, he made a mistake, he also made a really really horrible criminal call to go ahead and do the extensive surgery on the patient without doing the testing or the counselling. it was a HORRID violation of that man's body... but when the doctor cut off his penis, I am sure the doctor KNEW that he was cutting off a treasured, valueable, important to that man's body and self esteem. I am sure the doctor felt positivly sick over "having" to do it... and only did do it because of the belief that the man would otherwise DIE.

On the other hand- millions of women lose their uterus every year because people *like you* do not think it is really a part of a woman's sexuality, or an important part of her body. They think like you do, that her uterus represents only a bloody inconvience of contraception, or some post menaupasal baggage, and that without it, both she and her now childfearfree f-mate can have all the hormone replacement pregnant horse urine farm sex they want... multiple orgasms and all.

What you said was insulting. I told you why.

That tragedy happened to ONE sixty eight year old man... ONE THIRD of his female peers are without their UTERUS... not because they had cancer... not because their doctor thought that they were in a life or death situation, not because of a failure to communicate the possibility of what might happen in surgery... but because the vast majority of those doctors, like you, do not value that part of a woman's body.

What happened to that man was a horrible tragedy... but it is not a HABIT. Routine hysterectomies on women is a HABIT, and disrespecting the wholeness of a woman, just as disrespecting the wholness of an infant boy, is wrong. The difference is that the adult women SHOULD have the ability to protect themselves... but they put faith in doctors who do not respect them or know better.

Your point was that we should not place all our faith unquestioning in our doctors was it not? How does the scandal of the millions of unnecessary hysterectomies cancel your point?

One third of sixty year old women are not missing their uterus because someone goofed... and they are not missing their uterus because someone believed they had terminal cancer. And their loss is not for you to place on a value scale.

http://www.circle-of-life.net/unnece...rectomies.html

I'm just saying that you might want to re-evaluate your opinions about women's sex organs if you want to truly grasp the spirit of what genital integrity is all about.

Love Sarah
post #18 of 26
Gurumama,

RE: This is exactly the sort of situation where liability lawsuits should be used--and why they shouldn't be capped.

The liability lawsuits always cover damages done and the care of the patient because of malpractice.

What is under consideration is capping the amount people can collect strictly for pain and suffering which is sometimes in the millions.
(Remember the coffee burn at McDonads'?)

That part is very subjective and often quite unfair. It alone drives up malpractice insurance to such a degree that many doctors can not afford to practice.
New surgeons, who have absolutely no law suits against them, can not afford to start a practice in Pennsylvania because the malpractice insurance is not feasible. It is creating a real problem.

Now back to circumcision and doctors who need to be educated about an intact penis.....
post #19 of 26
Yes I DO remember the coffee burn at McDonalds... the one where the woman recieved 3rd degree burns to her vagina thighs and buttocks which required her to recieve skin grafts and a week long hospitalization? all because McDonalds PURPOSLY set the temperature many degrees hotter than the industry safe standard in order to PROFIT... even after more than 700 claims of burns and still they did not turn down the temperature? They were instructed to keep the heat up at dangerous levels.

Was that your idea of a frivilous lawsuit example?

Maybe you need to learn more about what really happened... I mean- you need to learn about what happened because that women does not deserve your scorn for recieving the pittance of a compensation she got for what they purposly did to her!

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

Love Sarah
post #20 of 26
o.k. Sarah, let me re-post this. I did not know the details of the McDonald's coffee burn victim. It is at times mentioned when we talk about frivolous law suits, but I see that is unfair. But....

A liability lawsuits always covers damages done and the care of the patient because of malpractice.

What is under consideration is capping the amount people can collect strictly for pain and suffering which is sometimes in the millions.

That part is very subjective and often quite unfair. It alone drives up malpractice insurance to such a degree that many doctors can not afford to practice.

New surgeons, who have absolutely no law suits against them, can not afford to start a practice in Pennsylvania because the malpractice insurance is not feasible. It is creating a real problem.

Now back to circumcision and doctors who need to be educated about an intact penis.....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision