ARGH. Should i butt out?
nickelshrink
polyp-or-something they kept having trouble getting a
biopsy of. NOW, after yet *another* attempt, in which they
AGAIN could not fully dilate her and could not get but a part
of the polyp, her gyno is saying, "Oh let's just do a
hysterectomy."
!!! And she is agreeing. God knows i'd be fed up with all these
times in the office...the hospital...the office again...the hospital
again. But it seems so wrong to me. RIDICULOUS to be
unable to remove a polyp and to substitute a hysterectomy
instead!! I tried to be supportive and said "Do whatever you want
but if it were me i'd see another doc first." She likes and
trusts this one.
But *is* it ridiculous to have the hysterectomy under these
circumstances? If she's ready to end this circus by just having
the demned thing, should i butt out?
Actually, i said my piece so i probably *should* butt out, but
it's so major and so final, and may be nothing dangerous at all.
--
pax,
ruth
Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains
marcy
However, I did some research online (which you and/or your friend
should also consider doing) and found:
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/library/DS/00699.html
"Possible treatments for uterine polyps include:
"Surgical removal (excision). If you undergo hysteroscopy, special
instruments inserted through the hysteroscope - the device your doctor
uses to see inside your uterus - make it possible to cut away and
remove any polyps once they're identified. The removed polyp may be
sent to a laboratory for microscopic examination.
"Hysterectomy. If closer examination reveals that your uterine polyps
contain cancerous cells, surgery to remove your uterus (hysterectomy)
becomes necessary."
Since her doctor is attempting to perform a biopsy, there could be a
question of cancer.
Apparently a hysterectomy is not out of the question.
marcy
nickelshrink
> It is difficult to offer medical advice to someone I don't know.
> However, I did some research online (which you and/or your friend
> should also consider doing) and found:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/library/DS/00699.html
>
> "Possible treatments for uterine polyps include:
>
> "Surgical removal (excision). If you undergo hysteroscopy, special
> instruments inserted through the hysteroscope - the device your doctor
> uses to see inside your uterus - make it possible to cut away and
> remove any polyps once they're identified. The removed polyp may be
> sent to a laboratory for microscopic examination.
>
> "Hysterectomy. If closer examination reveals that your uterine polyps
> contain cancerous cells, surgery to remove your uterus (hysterectomy)
> becomes necessary."
>
> Since her doctor is attempting to perform a biopsy, there could be a
> question of cancer.
>
> Apparently a hysterectomy is not out of the question.
>
> marcy
>
Thanks marcy. It's a weird situation. She has had light post-meno
bleeding for 3 months, certainly not a good thing. Cancer must
still be a possibility, but she had a D&C a month ago, in one attempt
to biopsy the polyp-or-something. No abnormal cells, but the doc
(I quote) "did not have the right instrument" to grab and remove the
polyp.
(rant: I think i'd sue right there. What?! she's there, anesthetised
and dilated and i guess the bean-counters won't allow a stated
one-hour procedure to go on for 90min/2hours, while they bring in
and sterilize the needed instrument?? Ok, /rant)
Then another office attempt to biposy it, then another *hospital*
attempt, last week, in which they got *part* of it. The complete
absence of abnormal cells, under these circumstances...?
But i guess cancer is still on the table even after that.
Sorry, thanks for the reply, and hope all will forgive my real bad
attitude about this whole thing! It's probably better that i vent here
than that i vent to her - she'd been through the wringer on this.
>
> On Oct 9, 3:34 pm, nickelshrink <nickelshr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Some time ago i posted about my best friend who had a
>> polyp-or-something they kept having trouble getting a
>> biopsy of. NOW, after yet *another* attempt, in which they
>> AGAIN could not fully dilate her and could not get but a part
>> of the polyp, her gyno is saying, "Oh let's just do a
>> hysterectomy."
>>
>> !!! And she is agreeing. God knows i'd be fed up with all these
>> times in the office...the hospital...the office again...the hospital
>> again. But it seems so wrong to me. RIDICULOUS to be
>> unable to remove a polyp and to substitute a hysterectomy
>> instead!! I tried to be supportive and said "Do whatever you want
>> but if it were me i'd see another doc first." She likes and
>> trusts this one.
>>
>> But *is* it ridiculous to have the hysterectomy under these
>> circumstances? If she's ready to end this circus by just having
>> the demned thing, should i butt out?
>>
>> Actually, i said my piece so i probably *should* butt out, but
>> it's so major and so final, and may be nothing dangerous at all.
>>
>> --
>> pax,
>> ruth
>
>
sage hen
Hysterectomy isn't something to be taken lightly, or undergone in a
nebulous way. I got mine at age 33, for a good reason: cervical
cancer. I had several bad pap smears, then a bad biopsy. I jumped at
the chance to be rid of the monthly bloodbath and my oppressive
fertility. The surgery itself was rather easy. My uterus was removed
vaginally, and I was only in the hospital one night. A few days later
I resumed all my former activities.
But lo and behold, unmentioned by my woman MD, it soon became apparent
that my sex life would never be the same. In the absence of uterine
contractions, the fireworks weren't as bright as before. I've since
read confirmation of this effect in several books.
When I approached menopause age, I had the added wrinkle of
uncertainty. No periods to gauge my progress. I could read signs,
like ovarian twinges, but still had mostly guesswork to go by.
Some authors claim that menopause comes early to women who've had
hysterectomies, even in the presence of ovaries.
Several friends have listened to my story and elected against a
hysterectomy. All had iffy reasons like polyps or a prolapsed uterus.
None have regretted the decision. Of course, cancer is different.
Even then, in the case of cervical cancer, a cone biopsy might be
enough. Uterine cancer is different.
When I lived in southern Utah, cancer diagnoses fell like rain. We
were all downwinders from the atomic tests of the 1950s. Around 1990,
my neighbor's daughter was diagnosed with uterine cancer at, I
believe, age 35. She got pregnant about the same time. She already
had five kids, but was a Mormon. She got a patriarchal blessing--a
sort of fortune telling by the church fathers. They told her she
would live to raise her children. Her doctor told her to get a
hysterectomy if she wanted to see her children grow up. She had the
baby, and six months later was dead.
Keep up on your pap smears, ladies, and if a word is breathed about
biopsies, follow through.
Les
> Save trees AND money! Buy used books!http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
deja.blues
"nickelshrink" <nickel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5n2jn7F...@mid.individual.net...
Well, major, yes, but "final" might be a good thing in your friends case.
She's post meno, having symptoms that are difficult for a doctor to get to
and diagnose, and would result in months or years of more testing and
wondering what the heck's going on. What benefit is there for her to retain
her uterus , as opposed to having it removed?
Chakolate
@mid.individual.net:
> Actually, i said my piece so i probably *should* butt out, but
> it's so major and so final, and may be nothing dangerous at all.
>
Direct her to HysterSisters. They'll give her the straight dope not only
on how good an idea it is, but also on the sort of recovery she can
expect if she goes through with it.
*Then* butt out.
Chak
--
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
--Anatole France
Keera Ann Fox
> What benefit is there for her to retain
> her uterus , as opposed to having it removed?
The uterus produces vitamin D, which is important in bone health. IOW,
she may run a higher risk for osteoporosis.
--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/
deja.blues
"Keera Ann Fox" <thinkbig.s...@online.no> wrote in message
news:1i5rj99.8o3sgc4wo678N%thinkbig.s...@online.no...
> deja.blues <deja....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What benefit is there for her to retain
>> her uterus , as opposed to having it removed?
>
> The uterus produces vitamin D, which is important in bone health. IOW,
> she may run a higher risk for osteoporosis.
The uterus produces Vitamin D? I thought the skin produces Vitamin D, after
exposure to sunlight. Could you please provide a cite for that?
Keera Ann Fox
Sure. "Dr. Susan Love's Menopause & Hormone Book". She mentions it more
or less in passing on page 101 (2003 paperback ed.) "And at least one
study has shown that even women who retain their ovaries after
hysterectomy have lower bone mass than women who haven't had
hysterectomies. This may be because the uterus produces vitamin D as
well as prostaglandin, which seems to be important for bone health.
(Prostaglandin is a fatty acid that acts like a hormone.)"
Keera Ann Fox
I should add: The skin does produce vitamin D. It is our main source of
the vitamin. The thing about hormones (which Susan Love defines vit. D
as, i.e. made in one organ (the skin) to be used by another (the bones),
the classic definition of a hormone) is that you can't start mucking
with one without influencing some others, or mucking with one organ that
produces a hormone without having some other effect further down the
line, much like a row of dominos standing on end. Knock one down and the
whole row goes.
nickelshrink
> nickelshrink <nickel...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:5n26ulFfgh0dU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> Actually, i said my piece so i probably *should* butt out, but
>> it's so major and so final, and may be nothing dangerous at all.
>>
>
> Direct her to HysterSisters. They'll give her the straight dope not only
> on how good an idea it is, but also on the sort of recovery she can
> expect if she goes through with it.
>
> *Then* butt out.
>
> Chak
>
Thanks to all -- and this is exactly what i've
just done! 8~)
dejablues
Who knew!
I don't think that's a good enough reason to keep a troublesome uterus
though.
jacquie
before she was diagnosed, because it is a very slow growing cancer and woman
have been known to go through a pregnancy before they get the Hysto. My Dr
says it can take up to ten years to become full blown.
I believe that breast cancer can be environmental. Allot of the woman that
have gotten Breast Cancer were children in the days that cities sprayed DDT
in neighborhoods to get rid of mosquitoes. I remember reading years ago
about a community that seemed to have a large number of women who developed
breast cancer. When they did studies of these women's breasts they found
traces of DDT residue stored in the fatty tissue. I live in Az and you would
think they wouldn't worry to much about mosquitoes , but we lived across the
street from the high school, and they flooded all of the fields once a week
to keep the grass nice and green so there were allot of mosquitoes ...and
unfortunately these mosquitoes carried encephalitis. My girlfriends brother
got it and was sick all summer. So I was exposed to DDT..I started getting
fibrous tumors when I was in my 20's all benign. I have been having yearly
mammos since I was in my thirties..So far so good:) My best friend that
lived across the street from me during the DDT sprays died of breast cancer
9 years ago. My sister in-law ..who also lived in that area also contracted
breast cancer...she is a survivor:)
"sage hen" <deser...@cwo.com> wrote in message
news:1191980250.6...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
FurPaw
> That is sad about your friend. She must have had Uterine cancer for a while
> before she was diagnosed, because it is a very slow growing cancer and woman
> have been known to go through a pregnancy before they get the Hysto. My Dr
> says it can take up to ten years to become full blown.
Which type of uterine cancer are you talking about here?
Endometrial cancer can develop pretty quickly. Are you thinking
of uterine sarcomas?
> I believe that breast cancer can be environmental.
The cover story of Time this week is about the world-wide
increase in breast cancers, especially in developing countries.
I haven't had time to read it, but I'd be willing to bet that
environmental changes and pollutants will be strongly implicated,
along with women living long enough to develop bc in many
developing countries.
>
> "sage hen" <deser...@cwo.com> wrote in message
>> When I lived in southern Utah, cancer diagnoses fell like rain. We
>> were all downwinders from the atomic tests of the 1950s.
What a crock you all were fed about the safety of the nuclear
tests during that time! (I've seen a couple of documentaries
about this area.) Have any of you been able to collect
reparations from the US government, or are they still fighting it?
>>Around 1990,
>> my neighbor's daughter was diagnosed with uterine cancer at, I
>> believe, age 35. She got pregnant about the same time. She already
>> had five kids, but was a Mormon. She got a patriarchal blessing--a
>> sort of fortune telling by the church fathers. They told her she
>> would live to raise her children.
Of course they would know better than her doctor :-( .
>> Her doctor told her to get a
>> hysterectomy if she wanted to see her children grow up. She had the
>> baby, and six months later was dead.
>> Keep up on your pap smears, ladies, and if a word is breathed about
>> biopsies, follow through.
Yep - As soon as I saw my gyn because of postmeno spotting, she
did the biopsy right then and there - and it was endometrial cancer.
FurPaw
--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
To reply, unleash the dog.
Keera Ann Fox
> "Keera Ann Fox" <thinkbig.s...@online.no> wrote in message
> news:1i5s0f9.1x5xr7l15jkn7xN%thinkbig.s...@online.no...
> > deja.blues <deja....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Keera Ann Fox" <thinkbig.s...@online.no> wrote in message
> >> news:1i5rj99.8o3sgc4wo678N%thinkbig.s...@online.no...
> >> > deja.blues <deja....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> What benefit is there for her to retain
> >> >> her uterus , as opposed to having it removed?
> >> >
> >> > The uterus produces vitamin D, which is important in bone health. IOW,
> >> > she may run a higher risk for osteoporosis.
> >>
> >> The uterus produces Vitamin D? I thought the skin produces Vitamin D,
> >> after
> >> exposure to sunlight. Could you please provide a cite for that?
> >
> > Sure. "Dr. Susan Love's Menopause & Hormone Book". She mentions it more
> > or less in passing on page 101 (2003 paperback ed.) "And at least one
> > study has shown that even women who retain their ovaries after
> > hysterectomy have lower bone mass than women who haven't had
> > hysterectomies. This may be because the uterus produces vitamin D as
> > well as prostaglandin, which seems to be important for bone health.
> > (Prostaglandin is a fatty acid that acts like a hormone.)"
>
> Who knew!
> I don't think that's a good enough reason to keep a troublesome uterus
> though.
Maybe not, but at least we should stop thinking of it as a useless organ
when not used for childbearing. It's that sort of thinking that put so
many women through unnecessary hysterectomies.
kathryn
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21:19:45 -0600, FurPaw <furrea...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>jacquie wrote:
>> I believe that breast cancer can be environmental.
>
>The cover story of Time this week is about the world-wide
>increase in breast cancers, especially in developing countries.
>I haven't had time to read it, but I'd be willing to bet that
>environmental changes and pollutants will be strongly implicated,
>along with women living long enough to develop bc in many
>developing countries.
>>
>FurPaw
I found this BBC story MOST interesting. Could the improvement in our
mother's health and nutrition be the reason for some of the breast
cancers today? I am glad I have sons and no daughters.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7035095.stm
>Hip size 'gives cancer risk clue'
[small quote]
>The study specifically linked a woman's chances of breast cancer to her mother's
>intercristal diameter - the widest distance between the wing-like structures at the
>top of the hip bone.
>
>Women were at the greatest risk if their mother's intercristal distance was
>more than 30cm.
>
>The risk was even higher if these wing-like structures were also round.
>
>The researchers said their work supported the hypothesis that wide, round hips reflect
>high levels of sex hormone production at puberty, which continue into adult life, and
>impact on the embryo during pregnancy.
>
>Lead researcher Professor David Barker said: "A woman's hips are shaped at puberty
>when the growth of her hip bones is controlled by sex hormones, and also influenced
>by the level of nutrition.
>
>"Every woman has a unique sex hormone profile which is established at puberty and
>persists through her reproductive life.
>
>"Our findings show for the first time that the growth spurt of girls at puberty is strongly
>associated with the risk of breast cancer in their daughters."
Kathryn
ellen
> Chakolate wrote:
> > nickelshrink <nickelshr...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:5n26ulFfgh0dU1
everyone has given good respones to this. i just have to add that the
process through which this has evolved thus far does seem very strange
to me. especially the 'not having the right instrument' bit. i have
limited experience re: cancer/biopsies, but have been helping a friend
through the experience (she has bladder/urethra cancer & is currently
undergoing chemo & radiation). & getting a diagnosis was incredibly
hard & confusing. i don't know if that is typical or not. in your
friend's case, i think i would get the second opinion. the decision
to switch doctors has made a significant difference for my friend.
she is currently under the care of seemingly competent & compassionate
doctors.
but it sounds like you have advocated all you can. i hope for the
best for her.
ellen
jacquie
child born..my twin brother was the first :)
jacquie
"kathryn" <kdro...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:slerg3hdv46ahr95g...@4ax.com...
jacquie
had some cell changes but nothing to show that it was cancer...and that's
when she stated that it could take up to ten years to develop.
"FurPaw" <furrea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lK2dnT65_J_BC5Da...@comcast.com...
Eva
>
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21:19:45 -0600, FurPaw <furrea...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >jacquie wrote:
>
> >> I believe that breast cancer can be environmental.
> >
> >The cover story of Time this week is about the world-wide
> >increase in breast cancers, especially in developing countries.
> >I haven't had time to read it, but I'd be willing to bet that
> >environmental changes and pollutants will be strongly implicated,
> >along with women living long enough to develop bc in many
> >developing countries.
> >>
>
> >FurPaw
>
> I found this BBC story MOST interesting. Could the improvement in our
> mother's health and nutrition be the reason for some of the breast
> cancers today? I am glad I have sons and no daughters.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7035095.stm
>
> >Hip size 'gives cancer risk clue'
3 months ago the BBC was claiming that eating grapefruit increases your risk
of breast cancer.
Eva
sage hen
> jacquie wrote:
> > That is sad about your friend. She must have had Uterine cancer for a while
> > before she was diagnosed, because it is a very slow growing cancer and woman
> > have been known to go through a pregnancy before they get the Hysto. My Dr
> > says it can take up to ten years to become full blown.
I don't know if I'm remembering this right decades later, but I
believe the rationale for a woman with uterine cancer to terminate a
pregnancy is the increased hormone levels. Apparently cancer loves
them. That's why birth control pills and hormone replacement therapy
are a bad idea once cancer's diagnosed. Also, cancer treatment is
obviously not possible with a fetus present.
This is anecdotal, but I have an 83 year old friend in amazingly good
health except that she got breast cancer 6 years ago (she takes no
prescriptions). She was a migrant farm worker much of her life, and
was accidentally drenched by a crop spraying plane while picking
cotton in Arizona. I asked when this happened, and it was about 20
years before her mastectomy. Bingo!
Regarding the atomic tests of the fifities, the feds did institute a
$50,000 compensation program for cancer victims who lived in southern
Utah during that time. I grew up in northern Utah, so did not qualify
when I got cancer. We too got fallout--I remember being told in
elementary school never to eat snow because it was full of radiation.
I once saw a program about us downwinders. The director of the atomic
tests came to Utah and gave numerous speeches about the total lack of
danger. Just before that, his daughter's hubby almost accepted a
ranger job at Zion National Park. In an interview, the daughter
described her father's absolute horror, and insistence that she not go
live in such a poisoned environment.
Amazingly, the state's predominant religion still advocates blind
patriotism.
Les
>
> Which type of uterine cancer are you talking about here?
> Endometrial cancer can develop pretty quickly. Are you thinking
> of uterine sarcomas?
>
> > I believe that breast cancer can be environmental.
> The cover story of Time this week is about the world-wide
> increase in breast cancers, especially in developing countries.
> I haven't had time to read it, but I'd be willing to bet that
> environmental changes and pollutants will be strongly implicated,
> along with women living long enough to develop bc in many
> developing countries.
>
>
>
> > "sage hen" <desertny...@cwo.com> wrote in message