How do I convince my husband to have a vasectomy?
Ceas...@webtv.net
I'm 33 and my husband is 38. We have 2 boys, ages 13 and 10. We are
very comfortable and both agree we don't want any more children. We are
getting to a point where we are free to do alot of things now. However,
my husband insists he will not have the vasectomy. He has many friends
and family members who did it and knows it is a fairly simple procedure.
I don't want to be on birth control pills anymore as I am trying to lose
weight. We don't really like condoms. So, I think a vasectomy is the
best way to go. The pills are expensive every month and under his
insurance, he could have the procedure for only $20. How do I convince
him to do this?? This is really beginning to effect our sex life!!
Thanks for your help!
Giraud
I know what you are saying - I never liked hormonal methods for women (I've
seen side effects, and it is not the healthiest thing), and I don't hate
comdoms, but I don't like their reliability rate and I prefer not to have
to use them, so I went for the vasectomy.
But be careful regarding your situation. There are some deep-seated
psychological issues surrounding sterilization in men. If you read some of
the stories at the vasectomy-information.com site, you will see some men
who "just could not stand the idea of being sterile." And this is even
when the know they don't want more kids!
The regret can be greatly amplified by a wife's pressure. Please don't
take this lightly! If he goes through with it and feels pressued by you,
this could cause great regret, resentment, and perhaps even problems
post-vasectomy. if he feels like less of a man, which some men do for some
reason (personally, I feel like *more* of a man, but that's just me!), it
can really be a tough situation.
So I'm not sure how to solve your problem, but I'd start with having a
talk, if he's willing, and asking why he is adverse to it. Emphasize that
this has to be something he wants, but you just would like to know what he
is thinking and feeling, or what his fears are. Some of his fears may be
unfounded, and some may be very reasonable.
The other option, of course, is a tubal for you. If he is completely
against it and can't change his mind, but you don't fear the operation,
that may be the way to go. From the stories I have heard, forcing him to
do it because it is simpler and cheaper (which is all true) can have bad
effects later, so take your time with this and make sure he is sure - if he
does decided to do it eventually.
Joe
webmaster
<Ceas...@webtv.net> wrote
> my husband insists he will not have the vasectomy. He has many friends
> and family members who did it and knows it is a fairly simple procedure.
> I don't want to be on birth control pills anymore as I am trying to lose
> weight. We don't really like condoms. So, I think a vasectomy is the
> best way to go. The pills are expensive every month and under his
> insurance, he could have the procedure for only $20. How do I convince
> him to do this?? This is really beginning to effect our sex life!!
> Thanks for your help!
I had a vasectomy by my wife's request 19 years ago, I was not happy for it,
but did it to please her, things have changed after this, now we have no sex
life and have had none for some time.......................... it has not
helped us!
I wish I never had the operation done in the first place.
--
Regards,
Peter
Giraud
> I had a vasectomy by my wife's request 19 years ago, I was not happy for
> it, but did it to please her, things have changed after this, now we have
> no sex life and have had none for some time.......................... it
> has not helped us!
>
> I wish I never had the operation done in the first place.
What exactly about the vasectomy do you regret? Do you attribute the
changes in your sex life to your vasectomy (e.g. did your unhappiness that
she pressured you affect your relationship and sex life?), or to other life
factors?
I am just trying to find out if you are saying that the vasectomy was not a
"solution" that helped your relationship, or if you are saying the
vasectomy ruined what would have been a good relationship.
Giraud
webmaster
"Giraud" wrote
> What exactly about the vasectomy do you regret? Do you attribute the
> changes in your sex life to your vasectomy (e.g. did your unhappiness that
> she pressured you affect your relationship and sex life?), or to other
life
> factors?
>
> I am just trying to find out if you are saying that the vasectomy was not
a
> "solution" that helped your relationship, or if you are saying the
> vasectomy ruined what would have been a good relationship.
I had a vasectomy to please my wife, afterwards, ejaculation was not the
same, did not feel right, minimal semen, although we continued with a
limited sex life, it was nothing as before.
Yes, I gave in to her reluctantly, she never really appreciated it, then sex
life got less and less over the years, now it is almost non existent, and
yes I still do not achieve the same experiences as I had done before the
operation.
I know several people who say that vasectomy never affected their sex life,
some say it was better, and yes, some said they had the same problems as me,
they wished they had not had it done, but we are all different and many have
found it a useful exercise.
--
Regards,
Peter
Giraud
> Up until the very end she
> said it's ok for me to back out.
Wow, yes, my wife said the same thing - even in the waiting room before my
op, she said that I didn't have to go through with it if I did not want to.
> You've
> confirmed that if you are NOT ready for it, there are consequences.
It seems that this is so true. You have to really want it, or the chances
of consequences rises. It's a complex issue.
Giraud
Giraud
> I had a vasectomy to please my wife, afterwards, ejaculation was not the
> same, did not feel right, minimal semen, although we continued with a
> limited sex life, it was nothing as before.
It sounded from an earlier post that you may have had protatitis long ago,
and this may have been what you were feeling. Do you think this could have
been the cause?
> Yes, I gave in to her reluctantly, she never really appreciated it, then
> sex life got less and less over the years, now it is almost non existent,
> and yes I still do not achieve the same experiences as I had done before
> the operation.
Still, I'm not sure I understand. Was it the change in the physical nature
of sex that caused this decline, or were there other relationship factors?
Giraud
trifold
I agree with others that forcing him into a vasectomy is the wrong way
to go. And I hope you're not holding back on sex as a way of bringing
pressure to bear. We often hear of things going badly wrong in this
sort of situation. Still, I understand your desire to be off the pill,
for all sorts of reasons (expense and weight loss were less important
to my wife and me than other health issues). I'd tell you to send him
to us, but there's probably not much more we could tell him that he
hasn't heard from his buddies. You could tell him you are so serious
about getting off the pill--and if I were you, I'd do some research on
the other health issues involved, which he might find more persuasive
than the money and weight issues--that you are committed to changing
your bc. Then talk to your doctor about the alternatives, and tell
your husband about them. If none appeal, you might consider a tubal
for yourself. When my wife and I had this conversation, that
persuaded me she was really serious. And that's when I decided to go
for the vasectomy. Good luck!
trifold
> "Giraud" wrote
>
> > What exactly about the vasectomy do you regret? Do you attribute the
> > changes in your sex life to your vasectomy (e.g. did your unhappiness that
> > she pressured you affect your relationship and sex life?), or to other
> life
> > factors?
> >
> > I am just trying to find out if you are saying that the vasectomy was not
> a
> > "solution" that helped your relationship, or if you are saying the
> > vasectomy ruined what would have been a good relationship.
>
> I had a vasectomy to please my wife, afterwards, ejaculation was not the
> same, did not feel right, minimal semen, although we continued with a
> limited sex life, it was nothing as before.
Orgasm can be very subjective.
>
> Yes, I gave in to her reluctantly, she never really appreciated it,
I wonder what you expected by way of "appreciation."
Giraud
>>It seems that this is so true. You have to really want it, or the chances
>>of consequences rises. It's a complex issue.
>
> was your wife's
> idea. Perhaps unless it's the man's decision for a vasectomy, it should
> be seriously reconsidered before taking the plunge into something he
> didn't really want. Like marriage. I hear it happens with marriage as
> well.
Well, it really depends on how you look at it in our case. She asked me if
I had ever thought about getting one, and I said yes. I had, in fact,
thought about it several times over the past few years, but the decision to
have or not have kids had been a sensative topic in the past, and so I
avoided (perhaps needlessly) being the one to suggest this "closure."
The fact that she brought up the vas question meant she was thinking of it
too - in a way, it was a confirmation that she was OK with the idea. And
given that she was the one who originally more strongly thought she might
want kids, I was greatly relieved when she made the overature.
Giraud
Will & Susan Nichols
with the opposite sex. The man that can not put up with a simple
procedure to make life a little easier after his wife bore his children
and endured the labor and pain that comes with that is the one who is
"whiney and selfish". I have bore the weight of the birth control issue
for over 10 years and I don't think I am being at all whiney or selfish
for wanting him to bear a little responsibility in all of this. How
dare you!
David
I think you just responded to someone who was NOT the original poster in
this thread.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
"Ugly" <baba...@drlauramail.com> wrote in message
news:c2ria.7654$xD7....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 17:44:30 -0500 (EST), Will & Susan Nichols babbled on
about Re: How do
> I convince my husband to have a vasectomy? proclaiming:
> First, the "babbling" remark is generic and is applied to everyone. The
other two are for
> you alone. I've dealt with 100% of the birth control in my marriage. I
don't begrudge my
> wife for not "taking turns" or anything. I did not DEMAND her to do
anything like that.
> You, however, are expecting your husband to undergo surgery because it
makes YOU feel
> better. Hey, if he wants to, great. If he doesn't, then chill out. I've
had a LOT more
> surgery than my wife (or you) will ever have. Unlike you, I do not
begrudge my spouse
> because of this. I've had my share of near-death experiences. No floating
on clouds and
> visiting god and other such out of body experiences you hear of, but
still, sometimes even
> the surgeon was amazed I lived. But I don't have bitter feelings towards
my spouse
> (unlike you) just because some things were harder on you than they were
for him. On the
> same token, I saw that my wife did have a difficult time with her
pregnancy and had
> candidly proposed the idea of me getting a vasectomy. Surprisingly, she
wasn't too keen
> about it. Despite the rough time she had, she thought she wanted another
child. Eventually
> she came to reassess things, and acknowledged that we would be making a
major financial
> mistake if we had any more kids. That's when I said I'd go through with
the vasectomy
> plans I had initially thought about, researched it, and made the
arrangements.
>
> Now, if she did all the nagging and pressuring that you seem to be doing,
I'd be more
> hesitant in complying, so I don't blame your husband in being
disinterested either. From
> this message and the previous one, it sounds like you're such a BITCH to
him. Because he
> won't do what you command of him? Listen, lady, not only is that not a way
to get along
> with someone you allegedly love, but maybe it shows that you DON'T love
him (anymore, or
> maybe never did) and if that is the case, why should he have a vasectomy
just for YOU?
>
> Another thought - if your pills cost so much, stop taking them. Pop
another kid. You may
> conclude that the pills aren't so expensive after all.
>
Will & Susan Nichols
"nasty" or "bitchy" in any way. She was simply asking advice from
those that had been thru this and how they came to that decision.
"Ugly" is the one being bitchy and nasty here by passing judgement on
how he perceives she is treating her husband. She never stated she was
withholding sex from him or was forcing him to make this decision. For
him to tell her she is "begging" him to have an affair is outrageous.
Unless "Ugly" personally knows this person, he is completely out of line
in the way he has posted his reponse to her.
As I said, "Ugly" has some serious issues and may not be as happy about
his decision as he may imply.
David
some good points have been made in response to the original poster by all
participants. I particularly liked Giraud's thoughtful reply, and Ugly did
make a good point.
I know that not everybody agrees, but regret of vasectomy done under
pressure can have far reaching consequences. If regret is likely, then is it
worth doing in the first place? There are other methods available that may
be better to use than to break up a perfectly good marriage over resentment
of a forced vasectomy.
I agree with Giraud (and others) that it would be a good idea for our
original poster to sit down (without pressure) and try and find out the
reasons he's against it - that may give them as a couple something to work
with. It may well be that he doesn't really have a problem with the
vasectomy, but *really* has a problem with being told to have one.
One topic of discussion in this group a couple of years back was the
co-signing of consent forms for vasectomy. IE where there is a requirement
for a wife to co-sign for her husbands vasectomy, yet if she were to go for
a tubal there is a double standard.
Yes, I know it's not a totally simplistic argument, however this point
clearly made a lot of men very angry. Therefore Ugly has a perectly valid
point with the "My body, my choice" statement - and he's not alone.
Steve Law
Have you compared the risks of ESSURE the relatively new female
sterilization method that requires no abdominal surgery.
Suggest you read the two of you read all you can on the Prostate
Cancer studies, the endocrine (testosterone) damage, and ASA risks.
There are different viewpoints by people who read these.
Suggest you try these:
http://www.vasectomy-information.com/indexie.asp
and
http://dontfixit.org/
The first one is maintained by David who posts here frequently and is
a good starting point to reading abstracts of medical studies. The
second is cleary ant-vasectomy, thus offers a viewpoint that might add
some information.
As to your husband. All sites point to grave concerns of a man who
feels any pressure, however applied to having a vasectomy. Some men
find their ability to father children central to 'self' and thus not
something to be taken lightly. Most pro-vasectomy posters here are
recent snippers who say they came by their decision without any
pressure. So take care.
Some of us older cases, are not against vasectomy, but have the
opinion that the risks are understated so that a man has a tough time
making a fully informed decision.
Steve L
september gurl
counseling.
I think there is more here than what she is telling us.
THERE IS NO REASON WHY YOU SHOULD FORCE YOUR HUSBAND INTO DOING
SOMETHING HE DOESN'T WANT TO DO.
I think that she (and the previous woman- Susan Nichols) would want
her husband to be an obedient eunuch. To hell with these domineering
wives.
It is easier to stop one egg than millions of sperm.
Giraud
> I think the person behind the intial post should seek some family
> counseling.
> I think there is more here than what she is telling us.
> THERE IS NO REASON WHY YOU SHOULD FORCE YOUR HUSBAND INTO DOING
> SOMETHING HE DOESN'T WANT TO DO.
Agreed, but getting to the bottom of the reasons is worth a try, and *then*
if he still is against it, of course force is inappropriate.
> I think that she (and the previous woman- Susan Nichols) would want
> her husband to be an obedient eunuch. To hell with these domineering
> wives.
That's perhaps a little strong. Not a conclusion that can reasonably
jumped to.
> It is easier to stop one egg than millions of sperm.
I assume your tag line speaks of surgical means - as we know, stopping an
egg (even) using, e.g. hormonal means is not "easy." And there are side
effects and health issues. And stopping millions of sperm via barrier
methods is easier than stopping the egg, which is internal.
Nice tag line, but it seems a bit simplistic, doesn't it?
Giraud
David
"september gurl" <septemb...@london.com> wrote in message
news:336d80d5.03040...@posting.google.com...
Oh yes - I believe a few people assumed one of our regulars had decided to
post as a troll with your name I seem to remember???
> I think the person behind the intial post should seek some family
> counseling.
> I think there is more here than what she is telling us.
I Think the person behind the first post in the thread needs to talk to her
husband - the advice most people here gave. Find out why he feels the way he
does without pressure. OK there are other methods available and I believe
the concern of the sensible people who post here was the state of her
marriage and NOT the method of BC used by the couple.
> THERE IS NO REASON WHY YOU SHOULD FORCE YOUR HUSBAND INTO DOING
> SOMETHING HE DOESN'T WANT TO DO.
Quite. Nor should a man force his wife to do anything under protest either.
>
> I think that she (and the previous woman- Susan Nichols) would want
> her husband to be an obedient eunuch. To hell with these domineering
> wives.
I'm sure that's what you think (whatever your name is). However, what came
out from the original post was that she was trying to fathom out why there
was a gap in their understanding of each other.
>
> It is easier to stop one egg than millions of sperm.
Actually, it isn't, and it's fair to point out that women do not subscribe
to this view.
Trollery marks 0.5/10 must do better.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
David
> post as a troll with your name I seem to remember???
GMT-8 in the header might just be a clue here.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
september gurl
> > Oh yes - I believe a few people assumed one of our regulars had decided to
> > post as a troll with your name I seem to remember???
>
I take it, anyone who has a dissenting opinion is a troll then?
Anyone who is anti-vasectomy is a troll???
Sorry that my humble opinions got your underwear in a bind.
Lol.
www.dontfixit.org
David
"september gurl" <septemb...@london.com> wrote in message
news:336d80d5.03040...@posting.google.com...
My point is Steve, if you are going to post as a troll at least be a good
one! Trolls are supposed to stir people up, not invite sympathy.
Being anti-vasectomy is on topic here as you very well know. Having a
different opinion is also fine. How can you have a discussion without
differences of opinion? If you are referring to your persistant refusal to
provide sources (you call it flaming - we call it asking for proof to back
your claims) then that's another ball game.
Trolls have a purpose IMHO - to spark debate. OK, they post with the
intention of being inflammatory, but in my experience that then leads onto
some serious debate amongst those that wish to post on topic.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
september gurl
that I'm not Steve, as you don't have proof that I am. I am just
someone else that shares the same views as this Steve. Is it so
unusual to be anti-vasectomy?
The points I'd like to make, being the "troll" I am:
1)It's more politically correct for a wife to FORCE her husband
through whatever means necessary to have a vasectomy. That's okay. But
if the husband suggests that the wife gets HER tubes tied, that's
terrible. Right? Double standards. Society has shunned tubal ligation
and favored vasectomy, sadly. Which is a pity. The husband has no
obligation to "share" the pain as had the wife done with the pregnacy.
2)And yes, it is easier to stop one egg than millions of sperm. So
much so that for every two men that have a vasectomy 5 women have the
tubal.
And I'll post this useful link:
So Dave- you think that it isn't possible that more than 1 person here
could be opposed to vasectomies?!
Make sure YOU have YOUR facts straight before you accuse anyone here
that opposes vasectomies as being just this Steve.
Capice?
David
> that I'm not Steve, as you don't have proof that I am. I am just
> someone else that shares the same views as this Steve. Is it so
> unusual to be anti-vasectomy?
I use "Neotrace". Being opposed to vasectomy is not totally unknown, but two
people who just happen to have the same views, the same agenda and post from
the same server are possibly coincidence, possibly not.
>
> The points I'd like to make, being the "troll" I am:
>
> 1)It's more politically correct for a wife to FORCE her husband
> through whatever means necessary to have a vasectomy. That's okay. But
> if the husband suggests that the wife gets HER tubes tied, that's
> terrible. Right? Double standards. Society has shunned tubal ligation
> and favored vasectomy, sadly.
OK - for the purposes of argument I'll assume that you are not mr law.
Firstly, it is believed that tubal ligation is more popular than vasectomy.
In countries where they keep records of the number of vasectomies and the
numbers of tubals done, they generally are about equal (except in NZ where
vasectomy is higher). However, the research in the US into potential numbers
indicates that where you are tubals are more popular.
Secondly, how many women do you know that would be forced into anything?
> Which is a pity. The husband has no
> obligation to "share" the pain as had the wife done with the pregnacy.
I think you will find that although some men are indeed forced into it (as
is bound to happen) the majority of men see it as the best long term
solution for themselves (or the couple) and are perfectly happy to do it
voluntarily.
>
> 2)And yes, it is easier to stop one egg than millions of sperm. So
> much so that for every two men that have a vasectomy 5 women have the
> tubal.
Erm - do you KNOW anything about either procedure, and how it's carried
out???? Earlier in the post you claimed that "society shuns tubals", and
now you are saying that the number of tubals is 2.5 times the numbers of
vasectomies - I'd hardly call that "Shunning".
> So Dave- you think that it isn't possible that more than 1 person here
> could be opposed to vasectomies?!
Nope.
>
> Make sure YOU have YOUR facts straight before you accuse anyone here
> that opposes vasectomies as being just this Steve.
> Capice?
Well, I'll play along with you then "> Caprice?". To make sure I don't
confuse you with his lordship in future, try posting from a different
server, and try to be rather less like him. Saying something factual,
intelligent or original would be a good start.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
Steve Law
You have sunk to a new low. I have never posted under anything but
Steve L from my-deja.com. I have that set up to auto log into Google
Groups. Before that I posted only from DejaNews.
However, I would not be surprised if 'gurl' turned out to be that good
ol' boy Trevor - but only speculation due to the more UK feel I get
from the posts. Plus Trevor was the first to post here with the
dontfixit.org site. But might be some lurker that decided to jump in.
I also doubt there is a girl behind gurl. The GMT-8 I presume is from
some clock setting you see in the posts. I don't see those via Google,
it gives me all posts in time relative to my time zone. But that can
be tricked I am sure by setting your clock on the PC before posting.
Don't know if posting through Google does that as it being web based
would probably base everything on GMT-0.
Best thing to do is to ignore or give short notice to 'trolls' or
others like Trifold that goes on and on about detection bias despite
the Giovannuci showing that detection bias did not affect the results;
or like one he posted only 1/2 the results of a prostate cancer study
showing no risk over 55, but ignored the risk under 55 and tried to
claime the results definitive. (You can search Google to find the
thread)
btw: What is a 'troll?' - from your use I presume some anonymous type
poster, someone in disguise versus the two meanings in the dictionary:
troll for fish and troll (or dwarf) who hides under bridges. but the
internet gives new meanings to old words.
Its too bad you can't apologize and recognize your very narrow focus
on misleading men on the risks of vasectomy. You will do just about
anything to promote your view rather than have men know that the risks
are understated.
I make mistakes from time to time; but will apologize and admit facts
when there are facts that prove a point. I need not hide behind a
different post name, I have not the time for such nonsense. We are
discussing men's health which I take seriously.
Steve L
"Been There, Done That, Still Paying The Price"
David
"Steve Law" <stev...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:47cbbd02.03040...@posting.google.com...
> David,
>
> You have sunk to a new low. I have never posted under anything but
> Steve L from my-deja.com. I have that set up to auto log into Google
> Groups. Before that I posted only from DejaNews.
I didn't say you did it via deja.com (if it was you). The info that tracking
programs use is your ISP's server and NOT the service you post with. It does
include that information (and other servers it passes through on it's way to
you). Some of them draw a neat little map with the route the post/email
takes with times it took to get between servers.
It's just a truly remarkable coincidence that two people with the same
agenda that say the same are posting via the same ISP host server. However,
if I'm wrong I apologise to all, and I'll just put it town to one of those
billion to one coincidences that always happen.
>
> However, I would not be surprised if 'gurl' turned out to be that good
> ol' boy Trevor - but only speculation due to the more UK feel I get
> from the posts. Plus Trevor was the first to post here with the
> dontfixit.org site. But might be some lurker that decided to jump in.
> I also doubt there is a girl behind gurl.
No - it's not Trevor. It would be a little odd if it was, as he would have
to have the same ISP as "Gurl" and he doesn't live in the same time zone
even. I also doubt that "Gurl" is female - I have said this all along. It's
a totally male agenda.
> The GMT-8 I presume is from
> some clock setting you see in the posts. I don't see those via Google,
> it gives me all posts in time relative to my time zone. But that can
> be tricked I am sure by setting your clock on the PC before posting.
> Don't know if posting through Google does that as it being web based
> would probably base everything on GMT-0.
The time stamp is from your ISP's server. It is not from the PC clock, so
resetting your clock might make you late for work but won't affect the
header data.
>
> Best thing to do is to ignore or give short notice to 'trolls' or
> others like Trifold that goes on and on about detection bias despite
> the Giovannuci showing that detection bias did not affect the results;
> or like one he posted only 1/2 the results of a prostate cancer study
> showing no risk over 55, but ignored the risk under 55 and tried to
> claime the results definitive. (You can search Google to find the
> thread)
I suggest you read Giovannuci's published works, there are a lot of them. He
contradicts his earlier work as I've posted here more than once.
>
> btw: What is a 'troll?' - from your use I presume some anonymous type
> poster, someone in disguise versus the two meanings in the dictionary:
> troll for fish and troll (or dwarf) who hides under bridges. but the
> internet gives new meanings to old words.
The official usenet description of a troll is someone who posts imflammatory
comments that are intended to start a fight. I think the description has
become a bit fuzzy round the edges recently, and can include people that
just post nonsense whilst being on topic - IE not being serious about the
topic.
Pratchett has a different version of "Troll" in his diskworld novels.
>
> Its too bad you can't apologize and recognize your very narrow focus
> on misleading men on the risks of vasectomy. You will do just about
> anything to promote your view rather than have men know that the risks
> are understated.
Bearing in mind that I actually achieve the exact opposite I'll treat your
comments in the appropriate manner.
The website gets 500/600 user sessions per day on average.
Nearly all the traffic comes from search engines where people tap in
"vasectomy".
The stories section is usually the most read area, and the long/short term
problems areas usually top the most popular list.
30%+ of those reading the stories who have not had a vasectomy say that the
result of the section on them was that they either need to do more research
before going ahead, or they cancel it altogether.
So, people wander in looking for general info, and wander out after reading
the stories not so sure it's a good idea.
I'd say that is quite impressive achievement, and something that is totally
unmatched by sites that claim to be doing just that.
Now, would you like to explain exactly how that fits in with your comments
above?
>
> I make mistakes from time to time; but will apologize and admit facts
> when there are facts that prove a point. I need not hide behind a
> different post name, I have not the time for such nonsense. We are
> discussing men's health which I take seriously.
I seriously doubt that Steve. If you had any interest in men's health you
would not simply make things up to fit your agenda as you did so
disastrously very recently. Not for the first time either.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
Steve Law
If you notice, I have separated your web site from your distortions
that you sometimes post here. I place your web site first and make no
critique, but clearly label the dontfixit.org site as anti.
Our differences are fundamental that we disagree on the risks and thus
differ on what risks need to be told to men as consideration to a
vasectomy. It is not just Giovanucci studies that show risk of
prostate cancer. Giovanucci's studies show that you detection bias is
pure speculation on your part and others. Giovanucci is only two of
the dozen studies that show an increased risk of prostate cancer due
to vasectomy.
You and Trifold (mostly) like to point to the Chinese study as proof
that Total T does not drop (though on years 0-19 no Total T figures
are given - who mis-represents?). But you don't call for men to be
told the results of that study by the AUA that the study does show a
change in DHT due to vasectomy and men should be told that information
so they are informed that their endocrine (testosterone) system is
changed. My opinion is that that constitutes damage.
Men are not given the true risks and you continually ignore the
studies that men should be told about. I say tell them about the NZ
prostate study AND ALL the others so they are informed. 12 of the 17
studies showed an increased risk in the Schwingle table. Not a great
increase in risk, even in my opinion, but the risk factors are on par
or greater than that shown for Women's HRT.
[Women's HRT showed an overall increase of 38% in stroke, heart
attacks, and cancer going from 11 per 1000 to 15 per 1000. The
prostate cancer stats due to vasectomy show a rate going from 6 per
1000 to about 11 per 1000, a greater than 38% increase. Studies on
Women's HRT before a double blind study showed health benefits in
stroke, heart attack and cancer. The reason - doctor bias in presuming
their treatments were of benefit. There have been no careful studies
like that to reduce doctor bias on vasectomy maladies. How many posts
have we seen were men have claimed the doctor seemed to ignore their
complaint that it was vasectomy related?]
But reality of bias is something you have trouble understanding, even
when it is presented time and again by others right here and in your
stories. Bias is different than conspiracy, which I have never
claimed.
Steve L
Steve Law
I know you didn't say I posted under my-deja.com. You stated I posted
from some other address and name. A complete lie. I have only used
stev...@my-deja.com and signed off as Steve L.
Also, I differ from gurl in that I tend to focus on the health risks
not the political, which seemed to be gurl's focus. The political
muddies the water too much. Though from what I gather, gurl seems to
be stating that it easier to control one egg per month versus billions
of sperm per month - Yes, BILLIONS. Each ejaculate has up to 100
million sperm. Figuring we men like to brag at least 10 times per
month, gets us to that Billion mark. A few men here seem to say that
is there weekly count :)
On the face the one egg versus billions of sperm argument seems like
common sense. But if the control of one egg causes more harm than
controlling billions of sperm then the argument fails. Which is why we
always get back to the risks of each procedure, both short term and
long term. Short term common sense leads to the vas as easier than the
abdominal cavity, but with the complications reported here, not sure
we have a good stats on a comparison. Long term is not easy either, I
have not seen many studies trying to track hormone, cancer, or PTP in
females.
Never said the choice was easy. Just said the choice is not informed
nor made necessarily correctly if the man is given misleading
information and the true risks not given to him.
An anecdote: I know one man who had a vasectomy because his wife told
him that a Tubal would affect her hormones and probably make her not
get turned on and not want to have sex. I don't think she supplied him
with cites.
Steve L
David
the regulars.
The regulars have seen these arguments time and time again. Last week, last
month and last year the same old rhetoric from you, the same answers from
us. To be honest, anyone reading the group will know the history of the
people here, and what we say each time without fail. Therefore I see no
point in wasting time on posts nobody will bother to read.
You have not posted anything we have not asnwered many times, and your post
has the usual misreadings and distortions. So I leave it to the regulars to
make up their own minds.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
David
> I know you didn't say I posted under my-deja.com. You stated I posted
> from some other address and name. A complete lie. I have only used
> stev...@my-deja.com and signed off as Steve L.
You don't understand.
Each newsgroup posting and email contains headers that identify the server
it was posted by, and the path it takes to it's destination. The service you
use (web based or isp server) is part of the header, but the source server
is identified first. There are numerous services that will geographically
identify the servers along the trail. In the case of dedicated servers,
(institutions, larger companies, some libraries and some universities) the
name of the institution and town appear, and in the case of ISP's just the
local server location.
You and "Gurl" both say the same things, have the same agenda and post from
the same server, but use differing web based services to post.
As I said, If you are not the same person I'll put it down to a billion to
one coincidence happening and humbly apologise.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
Steve Law
I understand completely - you have lied to others in attributing a
post to me that is not mine. And you continue that lie by saying your
error could only be one in a billion. The same attribute toward your
view of vasectomy, you have a dogma and won't let facts sway.
Have always and only posted as:
Steve L from my-deja.com
David
> I understand completely - you have lied to others in attributing a
> post to me that is not mine.
I do believe you accused Trevor??????
This is a pointless discussion, as nobody can prove anything either way. The
ascertainable facts are that Ms Gurl and yourself post via the same ISP
server and do seem to share a similar agenda.
If it is not you, then sorry for any confusion caused, and I humbly
apologise.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
trifold
Ah. I've heard this line before. The claim that vasectomy is an
impostion on men. Let's face it, lots of men get it done so they
don't have to use rubbers. Others because they understand the dangers
of hormonal birth control.
trifold
>
> 1)It's more politically correct for a wife to FORCE her husband
> through whatever means necessary to have a vasectomy. That's okay. But
> if the husband suggests that the wife gets HER tubes tied, that's
> terrible. Right? Double standards.
Uh, I've never heard anyone say this. But in fact, a tubal is more
dangerous, more costly, less effective than vasectomy. Plus, you
can't tell if it's working or not till it's too late. That's reason
enough to favor vasectomy for most rational people.
>Society has shunned tubal ligation
> and favored vasectomy, sadly.
> 2)And yes, it is easier to stop one egg than millions of sperm. So
> much so that for every two men that have a vasectomy 5 women have the
> tubal.
LOL. As David has pointed out, this seems a contradiction. If more
women have tubals the men have vasectomies, then why do you say
"society" shuns tubals? What you really seem to be saying is that no
one should argue in favor of vasectomy over tubals. But there are
very good reasons for doing so medically. (You seem to believe
doctors and others only advocate vasectomy over tubal out of some
special pleasure they derive from hacking at men's balls. This, I
suggest, says more about your own fantasy life than it does about
"society.")
trifold
> You and Trifold (mostly) like to point to the Chinese study as proof
> that Total T does not drop (though on years 0-19 no Total T figures
> are given - who mis-represents?). But you don't call for men to be
> told the results of that study by the AUA that the study does show a
> change in DHT due to vasectomy and men should be told that information
> so they are informed that their endocrine (testosterone) system is
> changed. My opinion is that that constitutes damage.
What is the basis of your opinion?
>
> [Women's HRT showed an overall increase of 38% in stroke, heart
> attacks, and cancer going from 11 per 1000 to 15 per 1000.
But longterm studies of men post vasecotmy show they don't have
increased risk in these areas. In fact, vasectomised men tend to live
longer! LOL. (I suspect "detection bias" is at work here, though:
Vasectomised men see doctors more often and may take better care of
themselves generally--besides having more sex.) The
> prostate cancer stats due to vasectomy show a rate going from 6 per
> 1000 to about 11 per 1000, a greater than 38% increase. Studies on
> Women's HRT before a double blind study showed health benefits in
> stroke, heart attack and cancer. The reason - doctor bias in presuming
> their treatments were of benefit. There have been no careful studies
> like that to reduce doctor bias on vasectomy maladies. How many posts
> have we seen were men have claimed the doctor seemed to ignore their
> complaint that it was vasectomy related?]
>
> But reality of bias is something you have trouble understanding, even
> when it is presented time and again by others right here and in your
> stories. Bias is different than conspiracy, which I have never
> claimed.
For fun, Steve: Let's hear your definition of "detection bias." I'm
really curious to see whether you even know what it is.
trifold
> common sense. But if the control of one egg causes more harm than
> controlling billions of sperm then the argument fails. Which is why we
> always get back to the risks of each procedure, both short term and
> long term. Short term common sense leads to the vas as easier than the
> abdominal cavity, but with the complications reported here, not sure
> we have a good stats on a comparison. Long term is not easy either, I
> have not seen many studies trying to track hormone, cancer, or PTP in
> females.
>
> Never said the choice was easy. Just said the choice is not informed
> nor made necessarily correctly if the man is given misleading
> information and the true risks not given to him.
>
> An anecdote: I know one man who had a vasectomy because his wife told
> him that a Tubal would affect her hormones and probably make her not
> get turned on and not want to have sex. I don't think she supplied him
> with cites.
I'll see whether I can't find some comparative data on possible
longterm complications of tubal vs. vasectomy. On the surface, of
course, vasectomy is far superior because it is, well, on the surface:
The balls are just hanging there, easy to get at. So less intrusive
surgery, less recovery time, less risk of infection, etc. But I don't
know much about the longterm risks of tubal. In particular, I've
never heard anything about the declining libido issues. (I do know
there is evidence some women are affected by hormonal bc this
way--another strong argument for vasectomy in the eyes of many men!)
David
> longterm complications of tubal vs. vasectomy.
http://www.essure.com/consumer/c_evaluate_options.aspx
Is one site worth looking at. It compares tubal, vasectomy and the new
option in one chart. There are further comparisons on the website faq page.
What's interesting about this site from the manufacturers of the thing is it
seems to have gained acceptance for use on the basis of a clinical trial of
200 US women, and another study in Austraila. The only two places on the
planet where it is licenced (in 2003).
The thing the manufacturers dont tell you is in the australian trial they
only managed to insert the product into 85% of patients in the study.
(below).
It's also interesting that they don't exactly rule out death as a side
effect of essure or tubal, and increase the risk of ectopic pregnancy.
********
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2001 Nov;41(4):364-70 Related Articles, Books,
LinkOut
The safety and effectiveness of a new hysteroscopic method for permanent
birth control: results of the first Essure pbc clinical study.
Kerin JF, Carignan CS, Cher D.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Adelaide and Essure
pbc Training and Research Centre, Ashford Hospital, South Australia,
Australia.
BACKGROUND: Current methods of female surgical sterilisation require
incisional surgery, general anaesthesia and a prolonged recovery time. We
studied the safety and effectiveness of Essure pbc, a minimally invasive,
transcervically placed micro-insert that occludes the Fallopian tubes,
resulting in permanent female contraception. Device under study: The Essure
pbc implant is a dynamically expanding micro-insert which is placed in the
proximal section of the Fallopian tube using a modified minimal access
technology for cannulating the tube. STUDY POPULATION: Women aged 21-43
seeking permanent birth control. METHODOLOGY: Essure pbc micro-inserts were
inserted into the proximal portion of the Fallopian tubes under
hysteroscopic visualisation with intravenous sedation or paracervical block.
RESULTS: Bilateral device placement was achieved in 111 of 130 (85%) women
who underwent device placement attempts. Women found the device placement
procedure to be highly acceptable. Of women wearing the device for up to two
years rate, 97% rated it to be very good to excellent. There have been no
pregnancies reported in 1894 woman-months of effectiveness. Adverse events
preventing women from relying on Essure pbc were < 5%. DISCUSSION: This
first clinical trial showed the Essure pbc method of permanent contraception
to be safe and highly acceptable to women. Experience and improvements to
the delivery system should increase overall micro-insert placement rates.
CONCLUSION: The Essure pbc method of permanent contraception is an exciting
alternative to vasectomy or laparoscopic sterilisation that does not require
general anaesthesia or incisions.
*****
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
Steve Law
Apology accepted - I am not the poster 'gurl' and have only posted
under stev...@my-deja.com. I did not accuse Trevor, but said
speculate and mentioned it no further, and if gurl or Trevor would
have posted stating otherwise would have humbly apologized.
However, since my ISP is a nationwide cable provider who knows how
they consolidate or distribute their network identification.
As to similar agenda, well I do believe that anyone who questions
vasectomy in anyway seem to have a similar agenda to you. But 'my
agenda' again:
1. Vasectomy has risks.
2. Vasectomy is a possible birth control option among all the options
available.
3. The risks are not being told to men undergoing the procedure.
4. Thus the men (or couples) cannot make a reasoned choice because the
risks are not being given to them.
5. The bias (natural bias) of the medical establishment to its own
procedures makes discerning the risks more difficult.
This is not the only way to express my agenda, but is close.
"In The Range" is hardly a good measure of risk given the broad range
that the medical establishment itself established as the range. How
about, "differences between vasectomized men and non-vasectomized are
less than 5% on a statistical population of 1000 men correlated for
age and background." In the range can have over 50% difference and
still be called "In The Range." Think we will ever see such a simple
study? Do you want your Testosterone levels to drop by 50% due to
vasectomy and told you are "In The Range."
The above study and the study showing urologists rate of vasectomies
compared to the general population should help answer a lot of the
doubts. After all if it is so safe and assuming urologists are similar
to the rest of us in number of children, divorces, etc. their rate
should be much higher; after all its their procedure. Beats the hell
out of nonsensical "in the range" and "detection bias."
Steve L
Steve and Lisa
> HI,
> I'm 33 and my husband is 38. We have 2 boys, ages 13 and 10. We are
> very comfortable and both agree we don't want any more children. We are
> getting to a point where we are free to do alot of things now. However,
> my husband insists he will not have the vasectomy. He has many friends
> and family members who did it and knows it is a fairly simple procedure.
> I don't want to be on birth control pills anymore as I am trying to lose
> weight. We don't really like condoms. So, I think a vasectomy is the
> best way to go. The pills are expensive every month and under his
> insurance, he could have the procedure for only $20. How do I convince
> him to do this?? This is really beginning to effect our sex life!!
> Thanks for your help!
Hi..I wanted to respond to your question. Unless your husband really
wants a vasectomy, please leave him alone about it. My husband had one
under duress, and as luck would have it, he was among the small
percentage that had problems afterwards. He had two years of chronic
pain. The pain nearly destroyed our marriage, as ultimately, it was my
fault (since he didn't really want the procedure). Faulty logic, I
know, but when someone is in daily pain, they are not altogether
logical! I wanted to be off the pill for all the same reasons you
state, but here I am 3 1/2 years later, after the reversal (only way
to get rid of the constant pain) back on it! I would have rather had
another kid then put my husband through the hell he went through! I
implore you to do the research and see the chances you're asking him
to take with HIS body. Do a web search for
"vasectomy pain" and see what comes up...it may surprise you. He isn't
being selfish by not agreeing to your wishes. I wish I had backed off
when my husband first said no. Most people don't have any
problems...but some people do, and your urologist will never tell you
how bad it can get. Please respect the man you chose to marry enough
by letting this be his choice.
Sorry to sound so preachy, but I'd hate for someone else to go through
what we did.
Lisa Joiner
David
> However, since my ISP is a nationwide cable provider who knows how
> they consolidate or distribute their network identification.
>
a fairly small location - in the case of cable that will deffinitely be the
local cable franchise.
In the case of my town, it's at the top of the hill from me, and the
neighbouring towns on the same cable company have their own servers. Cities
might have more than one server depending on population.
> As to similar agenda, well I do believe that anyone who questions
> vasectomy in anyway seem to have a similar agenda to you.
Questioning something and fabricating bare faced lies are not the same thing
Steve. You will remember recent events, and other past instances.
> But 'my
> agenda' again:
>
> 1. Vasectomy has risks.
> 2. Vasectomy is a possible birth control option among all the options
> available.
No dispute - why you argue on this on the same bandwagon every two weeks
year in year out is a mystery.
> 3. The risks are not being told to men undergoing the procedure.
I think it's fairer to say that counselling is variable. Some here have
reported very good counselling, some less good. It's here that we have a
role.
> 4. Thus the men (or couples) cannot make a reasoned choice because the
> risks are not being given to them.
So they can decide based on the information *you* provide can they? If you
are seriously expecting people to make decisions on the basis of your
fabricated numbers it's simply not going to happen - people aren't that
daft.
> 5. The bias (natural bias) of the medical establishment to its own
> procedures makes discerning the risks more difficult.
Something you have yet to provide any backing for - it comes over as your
paranoia, and when you are trying to persuad people you have a point it
ain't good!"
hed as the range. How
> about, "differences between vasectomized men and non-vasectomized are
> less than 5% on a statistical population of 1000 men correlated for
> age and background." In the range can have over 50% difference and
> still be called "In The Range." Think we will ever see such a simple
> study? Do you want your Testosterone levels to drop by 50% due to
> vasectomy and told you are "In The Range."
So when are you going to provide us the information on vasectomy and
testosterone lowering that only you have then Steve? Not the first time you
have been asked, and not only by us either.
>
> The above study and the study showing urologists rate of vasectomies
> compared to the general population should help answer a lot of the
> doubts. After all if it is so safe and assuming urologists are similar
> to the rest of us in number of children, divorces, etc. their rate
> should be much higher; after all its their procedure. Beats the hell
> out of nonsensical "in the range" and "detection bias."
WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are saying that the above is a study into
urologists and vasectomy?? Have you lost what's left of your addled brain??
Your proof of urologists and vasectomy is your own little phone poll of less
than 10 urologists who mostly told you to piss off and not be so nosey!!! Do
you want me to dig out the post?
If you want people to believe you I suggest you post fact as opposed to this
repeated nonsense.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
trifold
>
> Hi..I wanted to respond to your question. Unless your husband really
> wants a vasectomy, please leave him alone about it. My husband had one
> under duress, and as luck would have it, he was among the small
> percentage that had problems afterwards.
It seems this happens a lot "as luck would have it."
>He had two years of chronic
> pain. The pain nearly destroyed our marriage, as ultimately, it was my
> fault (since he didn't really want the procedure). Faulty logic, I
> know, but when someone is in daily pain, they are not altogether
> logical! I wanted to be off the pill for all the same reasons you
> state, but here I am 3 1/2 years later, after the reversal (only way
> to get rid of the constant pain) back on it!
For the record, reversal is not the only way to treat post vasectomy
pain syndrome (although maybe it was in your husband's case, I don't
know). One procedure used instead is reopening the testicular ends of
the tubes, while keeping the prostatic ends sealed. This procedure
offers many advantages over vasectomy reversal: it is less
complicated; it is cheaper; there is less recovery time. Best of all,
the man continues to be sterile, incapable of fathering children, a
shooter of blanks. (This bothers some men.)
>Please respect the man you chose to marry enough
> by letting this be his choice.
> Sorry to sound so preachy, but I'd hate for someone else to go through
> what we did.
Not forcing your husband into vasectomy is good advice. At the same
time, no woman should feel she has to continue with hormonal bc or
some other method of birtcontrol she considers inconvenient and/or
dangerous--or worse, bear new children--because her husband doesn't
want a vasectomy. He can wear rubbers. Many men don't mind them.
-----
trifold
http://www.vasectomy-support
september gurl
> David,
>
> You have sunk to a new low. I have never posted under anything but
> Steve L from my-deja.com. I have that set up to auto log into Google
> Groups. Before that I posted only from DejaNews.
>
> However, I would not be surprised if 'gurl' turned out to be that good
> ol' boy Trevor - but only speculation due to the more UK feel I get
> from the posts. Plus Trevor was the first to post here with the
> dontfixit.org site. But might be some lurker that decided to jump in.
> I also doubt there is a girl behind gurl.
opposed to vasectomies too?! You are as close-minded as some of the
rest of the gits here. And I'm not Trevor either. Nice try.
David
> opposed to vasectomies too?! You are as close-minded as some of the
> rest of the gits here. And I'm not Trevor either. Nice try.
I know you are not Trevor - tell Steve.
I wish it WAS a girl behind "Gurl" - we might see some sense then! Steve
doesn't think you are a girl either BTW.
OK. If you use Outlook express as a news reader, open up Steve and "Gurl"
posts, right click properties|details|message source.
You will find both people's posts originate from the same server:-
<c2ria.7654$xD7....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
and are routed to usenet by:-
<15167-3E...@storefull-2338.public.lawson.webtv.net>
The rest of the routing will depend on how the ISP decides to route posts,
and the DSN numbers (like most ISP's) is variable for security against
hackers.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
David
september gurl
> No - it's not Trevor. It would be a little odd if it was, as he would have
> to have the same ISP as "Gurl" and he doesn't live in the same time zone
> even. I also doubt that "Gurl" is female - I have said this all along. It's
>
Steve and Lisa
I don't know you, so I have no idea if you are a doctor or not. Here
are more facts on our situation. We didn't rush into a reversal. We
saw three urologist who told my husband the pain was all in his head.
They wanted to do all various and sundry procedures on him, but he was
not about to let someone cut him again w/out all the facts. We began a
two year fact finding mission. I contacted every urologist in the
southeast that was listed in "America's Top Doctors." None called me
back. They weren't interested in vasectomy pain. We began an e-mail
relationship w/ Dr. Lou Zanonovich in Australia--he was extremely
helpful w/ "the latest treatments." We also spoke w/ Dr. Philip
Werthman in Los Angeles, again helpful, but too far for treatment.
We were finally referred to a former Emory University professor who
was now in an infertility practice. I called his office and left one
more desperate message. His nurse called back the next morning and
said,"When can you come in? Dr. Witt thinks he can help you." Dr. Witt
didn't do the reversal for another year...we tried many non-invasive
treatments first. Based on the response to one of those treatments,
Dr. Witt felt that a reversal would work. He wrote letters to our
insurance company and persuaded them to cover the procedure.
Since the procedure, my husband has been almost pain free. There are
still some days when there is a little pain...but not like before,
when the pain was on a daily basis. It was not severe, but it was
constant...usually a 4-5 on a scale of 1-10..just enough for an
eternal foul mood!
My husband is a one-man crusader trying to convince neighbors and
friends not to have vasectomies. I don't know how many he's
convinced, but they are at the very least, more informed than he was.
That's really his goal...that his friends are informed that there are
risks.
As for long term effects for chemical birth control...I have heard
from my doctor, and several friends have heard from theirs as well,
that it is healthier to stay on the pill all the way until menopause
and then continue on hormone replacement at that time (unless they are
smokers, of course) . Women forget that their bodies change over
time...we are so used to easy cycles when on the pill...suddenly,
husband has a vasectomy, and no more pill, and you're 35 or 40 and you
have horribly painful, heavy cycles. I know the jury is still out on
hormone replacement during menopause, but seems that the choice
between light bleeding and bleeding for 2 weeks out of the month, most
women choose the light!
Anyway, my husband was not dragged kicking and screaming...but he
never really wanted to do the vasectomy. He was looking forward to
sponteneity, and all the other wonders of being vasectomized, but they
didn't happen for us. We know dozens of men who have problems w/ their
vasectomies...and we know many, many more who have no problems. It is
, like all surgeries, with some risk.
I appreciate your suggesting condoms--my first child, now 15, is a
condom baby...so thanks, I'll stay on the pill!
Happy trails...and God bless Dr. Mike Witt!!
Lisa Joiner
Steve Law
I now know your problem. You can't read and understand what you read.
And when that happens you just resort to attacks. You have read into
my post as you want to try to hide from the fact that more studies
than not show increased risk of prostate cancer and detection bias has
not been shown but actually shown not to be the case. Endocrine
changes occur due to vasectomy and men are not told and you fail to
address the issue of why men are not told so they can weigh the risks
themselves.
Yes, I will keep posting. Not to covince men to my way of thinking but
to make them aware of risks they are not being told and let them
decide based on endocrine studies showing damage or the majority of
studies showing increased risk of prostate cancer. And you can post
also and the men will have the information to decide. That is what we
both want, the men to make informed decisions based on ALL the
information, not just the one study but all.
Steve L
Steve Law
My apologies for my speculation that you were Trevor and not female. I
do know many women who do not believe that vasectomies are as safe as
given in many forums and by the medical establishment; and those women
usually have the one egg versus millions of sperm as their starting
point, so I am humbled.
Steve L
Steve Law
Maybe gurl and I are co-located. Maybe I have found a soul mate :)
Then again maybe the cable company has a central identity but many
servers with different DSNs, but I am no guru. WebTV is a service
through MS I thought. My cable company may outsource some of their
support.
Steve L
trifold
I am not a doctor.
>Here
> are more facts on our situation. We didn't rush into a reversal. We
> saw three urologist who told my husband the pain was all in his head.
> They wanted to do all various and sundry procedures on him, but he was
> not about to let someone cut him again w/out all the facts. We began a
> two year fact finding mission.
If they thought it was "all in his head," why did they want to do
procedures on him?
>I contacted every urologist in the
> southeast that was listed in "America's Top Doctors." None called me
> back. They weren't interested in vasectomy pain.
Nevertheless, there is a substantial medical literature on how to
treat post vasectomy pain.
>We began an e-mail
> relationship w/ Dr. Lou Zanonovich in Australia--he was extremely
> helpful w/ "the latest treatments."
This guy I do know. He has written a very bad, outdated book on
vasectomy, using very little recent literature.
>We also spoke w/ Dr. Philip
> Werthman in Los Angeles, again helpful, but too far for treatment.
> We were finally referred to a former Emory University professor who
> was now in an infertility practice. I called his office and left one
> more desperate message. His nurse called back the next morning and
> said,"When can you come in? Dr. Witt thinks he can help you." Dr. Witt
> didn't do the reversal for another year...we tried many non-invasive
> treatments first.
What were these?
>Based on the response to one of those treatments,
> Dr. Witt felt that a reversal would work. He wrote letters to our
> insurance company and persuaded them to cover the procedure.
> Since the procedure, my husband has been almost pain free. There are
> still some days when there is a little pain...but not like before,
> when the pain was on a daily basis. It was not severe, but it was
> constant...usually a 4-5 on a scale of 1-10..just enough for an
> eternal foul mood!
Did this Dr. Witt offer an explanation as to what went wrong in your
husband's case? After all, either he is very special, or his
procedure was, since the overwhelming majority of men don't have his
problems, and those who do, are not treated with reversal. It would
be good to know in either case.
> My husband is a one-man crusader trying to convince neighbors and
> friends not to have vasectomies. I don't know how many he's
> convinced, but they are at the very least, more informed than he was.
> That's really his goal...that his friends are informed that there are
> risks.
I'm not sure how well informed they are unless your husband or his
doctor has some information on why his situation turned out so badly,
while the overwhelming majority of men do just fine. By the way,
which vasectomy procedure did your husband have?
> As for long term effects for chemical birth control...I have heard
> from my doctor, and several friends have heard from theirs as well,
> that it is healthier to stay on the pill all the way until menopause
> and then continue on hormone replacement at that time (unless they are
> smokers, of course) .
Odd. Our doctors told us just the opposite. That it is unhealthy for
women to stay on the pill into their 40s. This goes double for my
wife, who has lots of breast cancer in her family.
>Women forget that their bodies change over
> time...we are so used to easy cycles when on the pill...suddenly,
> husband has a vasectomy, and no more pill, and you're 35 or 40 and you
> have horribly painful, heavy cycles. I know the jury is still out on
> hormone replacement during menopause, but seems that the choice
> between light bleeding and bleeding for 2 weeks out of the month, most
> women choose the light!
Hmmmm. . .I think maybe doctors like the pill more down south than
they do up here--or out in California. Or in NYC. (But then, the
southeast has lots of quaint notions.)
> Anyway, my husband was not dragged kicking and screaming...but he
> never really wanted to do the vasectomy.
Still, it sounds as though he went in with lots of doubts, at least
according to your earlier posts.
>He was looking forward to
> sponteneity, and all the other wonders of being vasectomized, but they
> didn't happen for us. We know dozens of men who have problems w/ their
> vasectomies...and we know many, many more who have no problems. It is
> , like all surgeries, with some risk.
> I appreciate your suggesting condoms--my first child, now 15, is a
> condom baby...so thanks, I'll stay on the pill!
Well, that is your choice. But know it comes with serious risks. I
think women are within their rights to insist that their husbands
start using condoms if they want off the pill and their husbands won't
go for vasectomy.
> Happy trails...and God bless Dr. Mike Witt!!
I'm glad he was able to help your husband. But I do wish you could
offer a bit more information on what he thinks the problem was. And
why reversal was the best solution. Did he consider reopening the vas
at all? We try to keep people posted on details like this, so they
aren't just hearing rumors.
David
We have been down this road several times a month for the last two years.
All I ask is for you to post information you repeatedly claim exists that
you say backs your claims. You never do.
> Yes, I will keep posting. Not to covince men to my way of thinking but
> to make them aware of risks they are not being told and let them
> decide based on endocrine studies showing damage or the majority of
> studies showing increased risk of prostate cancer.
Nobody is asking you to stop posting. If you have information then post the
information you claim to have.
The problem is that you make it up - we have proved this time and time
again. If I were you, I would be sensitive to the fact that being repeatedly
proved to have simply made things up in pursuit of what you see as your
cause does it no end of harm in the eyes of the very people you are trying
to convince. I'd change tack and do some research and post facts with
supporting evidence.
You don't do this, and don't learn.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
Steve and Lisa
trifold:
I am not going to rehash the entire story here...but you are more than
welcome to read the "Steve and Lisa" story under long term problems.
BTW..there are many "quaint ideas" in the southeast...chief among them
respecting opinions that differ from yours. (unfortunately, I was born
a northerner--so I--like you should, had to learn to be more
respectful). In perusing this website, I have gotten the distinct
impression that the only medical facts that are valid are the ones you
find and the only opinions that are valid are yours. It seems the
standard mode of operation is argue, and if you cannot convince the
other to change his/her mind, begin the personal attacks.
Another "quaint" southernism is, "You can catch more flies with honey
than with vinegar." So, in closing, be sweet, y'all.
Respectfully,
Lisa
Steve Law
Are you saying that a change to the DHT levels between
non-vasectomized men and vasectomized men is not a change. The Chinese
study that continues to get cited here shows that change. What more do
want? The significance of the change is up to debate and men should be
told about the study and let them form their own opinion and depend
upon us to tell them what it means.
As usual you ignore the basics in your pursuit of justifying vasectomy
and justifying in not informing men of the risks.
Then again maybe I missed you saying that the some studies show
changes that men should be told about.
Steve L
trifold
> I am not going to rehash the entire story here...but you are more than
> welcome to read the "Steve and Lisa" story under long term problems.
> BTW..there are many "quaint ideas" in the southeast...chief among them
> respecting opinions that differ from yours. (unfortunately, I was born
> a northerner--so I--like you should, had to learn to be more
> respectful). In perusing this website, I have gotten the distinct
> impression that the only medical facts that are valid are the ones you
> find and the only opinions that are valid are yours. It seems the
> standard mode of operation is argue, and if you cannot convince the
> other to change his/her mind, begin the personal attacks.
> Another "quaint" southernism is, "You can catch more flies with honey
> than with vinegar." So, in closing, be sweet, y'all.
> Respectfully,
> Lisa
I am sorry if I offended you by pointing out that the southeast is
differrent from other parts of the country. When I lived there, I got
the distinct impression that they like it that way. (BTW, a respect
for difference was not one of the distinguishing features of most of
those I met in the south, but that may just be me.) As for your claim
I reject medical facts offered by others, I'm not sure how respectful
a claim that is. Nor how truthful. Certainly in replying to you, I
have not doubted any medical facts you offered. I merely asked for
some: Why did urologists who thought your husband's problems were all
in his head want to do procedures on him, as you say? Which kind of
vasectomy procedure did he have? Did his doctors suggest reopening the
vas tubes rather than restoring his fertility? What did they think was
the cause of the problem? I see newsgroups as forums for the exchange
of opinions and information. Questions are not disrespectful.
trifold
> I am not going to rehash the entire story here...but you are more than
> welcome to read the "Steve and Lisa" story under long term problems.
> BTW..there are many "quaint ideas" in the southeast...chief among them
> respecting opinions that differ from yours. (unfortunately, I was born
> a northerner--so I--like you should, had to learn to be more
> respectful). In perusing this website, I have gotten the distinct
> impression that the only medical facts that are valid are the ones you
> find and the only opinions that are valid are yours. It seems the
> standard mode of operation is argue, and if you cannot convince the
> other to change his/her mind, begin the personal attacks.
> Another "quaint" southernism is, "You can catch more flies with honey
> than with vinegar." So, in closing, be sweet, y'all.
> Respectfully,
> Lisa
Respectfully, here is some medical discussion of pvp. Some of it
supports statements included in the Steve and Lisa story (such as the
point made that much of the work has been done outside the US). But
it also suggests that the risk of pvp is very low; that there are many
effective treatments besides reversal--still less castration, which I
recall your story dramatically insists was repeatedly suggested by
doctors to your husband. Some of these studies are subject to
interpretation. Perhaps this would make for interesting (and
respectful) discussion. We might also discuss the growing evidence
that the method of vasectomy matters: Open ended seems less likely to
cause problems than closed, as does sealing the vas tubes far back
from the testes as opposed to up close. And there is the question of
the efficacy of testosterone therapy for pvp, which apparently was one
of the first remedies your husband was told to try. I respectfully
suggest talking about these issues would be useful to the readership
of this newsgroup. Many of them have come up before here--but perhaps
you have not been reading this newsgroup very long or that
attentively. With all due respect, the Steve and Lisa story at the
website suggests some things that strain credulity--for example, that
doctors assume men's testicles produce less sperm after vasectomy,
which is why they don't worry about pvp; or that urologists tell men
who complain of pvp that they should consider castration; or that
women who truly love their husbands would not suggest they get
vasectomies (now how respectul is THAT?). The advantage of the
newsgroup as opposed to the website stories pages is that here we can
talk with one another, ask questions and respond to them, refer to
specific studies, etc.
trifold
****
From:
Walsh: Campbell's Urology, 7th ed., Copyright © 1998 W. B. Saunders
Company
Long-Term Effects of Vasectomy
Long-term effects of vasectomy in humans include vasitis nodosa,
chronic testicular or epididymal pain, alterations in testicular
function, chronic epididymal obstruction, postulated systemic effects
of vasectomy, and possibly, an increased incidence of prostate cancer.
Although vasitis nodosa has been reported in up to 66% of vasectomy
specimens in men undergoing vasectomy reversal (Freund et al, 1989),
this entity does not appear to be associated with pain or significant
medical sequelae.
In humans, micropuncture studies have revealed that the markedly
increased pressures that occur on the testicular side of the vas as
well as the epididymis after vasectomy are not transmitted to the
seminiferous tubules (Johnson and Howards, 1975). Therefore, little
disruption of spermatogenesis is expected in humans. Biopsies up to 15
years after vasectomy show the testes to be essentially normal on
light
microscopy. Electron microscopic studies, however, have revealed
thickening of the basal lamina and scattered areas of disrupted
spermatogenesis in portions of the biopsy specimens (Jarow et al,
1985). Chronic orchialgia or epididymal pain, or both, after vasectomy
occurs in approximately 1 in 2000 patients. In some cases, vasectomy
reversal might be considered or, alternatively, an open-ended
vasectomy
may be used, as described previously. The brunt of pressure-induced
damage after vasectomy falls on the epididymis and efferent ductules.
These structures become markedly distended and then adapt to reabsorb
large volumes of testicular fluid and sperm products. When pain and
tenderness are localized in the epididymis, total epididymovasectomy,
including removal of the testicular vasal remnant, relieves pain in
95%
of men (Selikowitz and Schned, 1985)
and some more:
Complications of Vasectomy
Hematoma and Infection
Hematoma is the most common complication of vasectomy, with an average
incidence of 2% but a range of 0.09% to 29% (Kendrick et al, 1987).
Infection is surprisingly common, with an average rate of 3.4%, but
several series report rates from 12% to 38% (Appell and Evans, 1980;
Randall et al, 1983; Randall et al, 1985). The experience of the
vasectomist is the single most important factor relating to
complications (Kendrick et al, 1987). The hematoma rate was
significantly higher among physicians performing 1 to 10 vasectomies
(4.6%) than among those performing 11 to 50 vasectomies (2.4%) or
greater than 50 vasectomies per year (1.6%). A similar relationship
was
seen for the hospitalization rate.
Sperm Granuloma
Sperm granulomas form when sperm leak from the testicular end of the
vas. Sperm are highly antigenic, and an intense inflammatory reaction
occurs when sperm escape outside the reproductive epithelium. Sperm
granuloma are rarely symptomatic. The presence or absence of a sperm
granuloma at the vasectomy site seems to be of importance in
modulating
the local effects of chronic obstruction on the male reproductive
tract. The sperm granuloma's complex network of epithelialized
channels
provides an additional absorptive surface that helps vent the high
intraluminal pressure in the obstructed excurrent ducts. Numerous
animal studies have correlated the presence or absence of sperm
granuloma at the vasectomy site with the degree of epididymal and
testicular damage. Species that always develop granulomas after
vasectomy have minimal damage to the seminiferous tubules. Some
studies
of men undergoing vasectomy reversal have revealed somewhat higher
success rates in men who have a sperm granuloma at the vasectomy site
(Silber, 1977), whereas another large study has not (Belker et al,
1991).
Although sperm granulomas at the vasectomy site are present
microscopically in 10% to 30% of men undergoing reversal, it is likely
that, given enough time, virtually all men develop sperm granulomas at
the vasectomy site, the epididymis, or the rete testis.
When chronic postvasectomy pain is localized to the granuloma,
excision
and occlusion of the vasa with intraluminal cautery usually relieve
the
pain and prevent recurrence (Schmidt, 1979). On the other hand, men
with postvasectomy congestive epididymitis may be relieved of their
pain by open-ended vasectomy designed to purposefully produce a
pressure-relieving sperm granuloma.
Br J Urol 1997 Feb;79(2):269-70
The incidence of post-vasectomy chronic testicular pain and the role
of nerve stripping (denervation) of the spermatic cord in its
management.
Ahmed I, Rasheed S, White C, Shaikh NA
Airedale General Hospital, Keighley, UK.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of chronic postvasectomy testicular
pain (CPTP) and evaluate the use of denervation of the spermatic cord
in its management. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective postal survey
of 560 patients (mean age 36 years, range 25-55; mean time since
vasectomy 19 months, range 8-39) who underwent
vasectomy between July 1992 and December 1994 was carried out to
determine the incidence of CPTP. A prospective study was conducted in
a further group of 17 patients (mean age 43 years, range 34-60), who
had had CPTP for at least one year, to evaluate the effectiveness of
nerve stripping of the spermatic cord in relieving pain. RESULTS: Of
396 replies, 108 (27.2%) patients complained of some testicular pain
following their vasectomy operation. In 88 (82%) of these 108 patients
the pain was brief and was not defined as CPTP, while 20 (19%)
patients had pain for > 3 months; 33 (31%) patients required
analgesics to control the pain. Of the 17 patients who underwent
spermatic cord
denervation, 13 reported complete relief of pain at their first
follow-up visit and were discharged. Four patients had a significant
improvement in the symptom score and were satisfied with the results.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a small but significant incidence of CPTP and
patients should be warned of this possibility when counselled before
operation.
Denervation of the spermatic cord seems to be a viable surgical option
for patients with CPTP who fail to respond to conservative measures.
Br Med J 1982 Jun 5;284(6330):1710
Pain on ejaculation after vasectomy [letter]
Edwards IS, Errey B.
In "Any questions?" (February 6, p. 408) you report a case of a man
with a 2-year history of severe pain on ejaculation starting 2 years
after vasectomy; and Dr. G. Barry Carruthers suggests a diagnosis of
prostatitis, probably unrelated to vasectomy. Pain with ejaculation
following vasectomy is fortunately very rare, but several cases have
been documented. Cures have been reported after excision of a
spermatic granuloma--if one can be
found; or by vasovasostomy for the relief of congestive epididymitis.
We wish to report that in 7 male patients with this distressing
symptom, immediate relief has followed a simple maneuver which can be
carried out under local anesthetic: this is to open the closed lower
end of the vas on the affected side. Spermatozoa arefrom then on
released into and reabsorbed from the scrotal cavity without producing
any symptoms or signs
of their presence there. In none of our cases has this maneuver failed
to produce relief; nor has pain recurred over a period of 1-3 years.
Fertility does not return as the upper closed end of the vas remains
closed. We suggest that others might offer this simple and harmless
procedure to the occasional man unfortunate enough to suffer pain with
ejaculation after his vasectomy.
PMID: 12264227 [PubMed - indexed for
MEDLINE]
Chronic testicular pain following vasectomy
McMahon AJ; Buckley J; Taylor A; Lloyd SN; Deane RF; Kirk D
AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Department of Urology, Western Infirmary,
Glasgow.
SOURCE: Br J Urol 1992 Feb;69(2):188-91
CITATION IDS: PMID: 1537032 UI: 92163801
COMMENT: Comment in: Br J Urol 1992 Sep;70(3):338-9
ABSTRACT: The incidence of chronic testicular pain following vasectomy
has not been previously assessed. We have carried out a survey by
postal questionnaire and telephone interview of 172 patients 4 years
after vasectomy to assess the incidence of chronic testicular pain.
Significant early post-operative complications occurred in 6 patients
(3.5%): 2 infection, 3 haematoma and 1 orchitis. Chronic testicular
discomfort was present in 56 patients (33%), considered by 26 (15%) to
be troublesome but not by the other 30 (17%). Testicular discomfort
related to sexual intercourse occurred in 9 cases (5%). Of the 9
patients who had sought further medical help only 2 had had further
surgery (1 an epididymectomy and 1 excision of a hydrocele). Only 3
patients regretted having had the vasectomy because of chronic pain.
On ultrasound examination, epididymal cysts were a common finding on
both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients following vasectomy. Prior
to vasectomy, all patients should be counseled with regard to the risk
of chronic testicular pain.
TITLE: Epididymectomy for post-vasectomy pain: histological review.
AUTHORS: Chen TF; Ball RY
AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Department of Urology, Addenbrooke's
Hospital, Cambridge.
SOURCE: Br J Urol 1991 Oct;68(4):407-13
ABSTRACT: Fifteen epididymectomies were performed on 10 patients with
post-vasectomy pain and 12 specimens were available for
histopathological review. The findings were compared with those in 2
groups in which epididymectomy was performed for chronic
epididymo-orchitis and epididymal cysts. The results showed that 50%
of the post-vasectomy group were cured by simple epididymectomy.
Pathological findings revealed features of long-standing obstruction
and interstitial and perineuralfibrosis which may have accounted for
the pain. It is important to recognise this late complication of
vasectomy and, if surgery is to be performed, to include all of the
distal vas and previous vasectomy site in the excision.
BJU Int 2000 Jun;85(9):1097-9
Epididymectomy is an effective treatment for scrotal pain after
vasectomy.
West AF, Leung HY, Powell PH
Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Freeman Road,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of epididymectomy in patients
with significant scrotal pain after vasectomy.
PATIENT AND METHODS: Sixteen patients were identified retrospectively
to have undergone epididymectomy for pain after vasectomy; 19
epididymectomies were performed (three bilateral and 13 unilateral).
Details from the preoperative investigations, histological examination
and follow-up of symptoms were analysed and correlated.
Outcomes were initially assessed at the routine outpatient clinic
review 3 months after surgery and the long-term outcomes were assessed
by a telephone interview 3-8 years after epididymectomy (mean 5.5
years). RESULTS: Of the 16 patients, 14 had excellent initial
symptomatic benefit from epididymectomy. At 3-8 years afterward, nine
of 10
patients interviewed had a sustained improvement of their scrotal
pain. The following were indicators of a poor outcome: atypical
symptoms including testicular or groin pain; erectile dysfunction and
normal appearance of the epididymis on ultrasonography. Patients with
bilateral scrotal pain can have a good outcome after epididymectomy.
CONCLUSION: Epididymectomy in well-selected patients is a reliable
and effective treatment for pain after vasectomy.
Urol 2000 Dec;164(6):1939-42
Vasectomy reversal for the post-vasectomy pain syndrome: a clinical
and histological evaluation.
Nangia AK, Myles JL, Thomas AJ JR
Urological Institute and Department of Anatomic Pathology, Cleveland
Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
PURPOSE: The cause of the post-vasectomy pain syndrome is unclear.
Some postulated etiologies include epididymal congestion, tender sperm
granuloma and/or nerve entrapment at the vasectomy site. To our
knowledge nerve proliferation has not been evaluated previously as a
cause of pain. Vasectomy reversal is reportedly successful for
relieving pain in some patients. We report our experience and
correlate histological findings in resected vasal segments with
outcome to explain the mechanism of pain in these patients. MATERIALS
AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the
records of 13 men who underwent vasectomy reversal for the
post-vasectomy pain syndrome. We compared blinded histological
evaluations of the vasal ends excised at vasectomy reversal in these
patients with those of pain-free controls who underwent vasectomy
reversal to reestablish fertility. Controls were matched to patients
for the interval since vasectomy. Histological features were graded
according to the degree of severity of vasitis nodosum, chronic
inflammation and nerve proliferation. RESULTS: Mean time to pain onset
after vasectomy was 2 years. Presenting symptoms included testicular
pain in 9 cases, epididymal pain in 2, pain at ejaculation in 4 and
pain during intercourse in 8. Physical examination demonstrated tender
epididymides in 6 men, full epididymides in 6, a tender vasectomy site
in 4 and a palpable nodule in 4. No patient had testicular tenderness
on palpation. Unilateral and bilateral vasovasostomy was
performed in 3 and 10 of the 13 patients, respectively.
Postoperatively 9 of the 13 men (69%) became completely pain-free.
Mean followup was 1.5 years. We observed no differences in vasectomy
site histological features in patients with the post-vasectomy pain
syndrome and matched controls, and no difference in histological
findings in patients with the post-vasectomy pain syndrome who did and
did not become pain-free postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: No histological
features aid in identifying a cause of pain or provide prognostic
value for subsequent pain relief. Vasectomy reversal appeared to be
beneficial for relieving pain in the majority of select patients with
the post-vasectomy pain syndrome.
Steve Law
You forgot to mention that you and others discount claims that
reversal is the best option despite an earlier post by a UKer that his
doctor said reversal helped PVP in 2 out 3 cases.
As usual you want to question anyone who does not agree with your
dogma. Also, why don't you produce the studies that say rare. How many
men did they interview or did they just take doctors word for it?
Respectful discussion and Trifold. That I believe is an oxymoron.
Steve L
David
> You forgot to mention that you and others discount claims that
> reversal is the best option despite an earlier post by a UKer that his
> doctor said reversal helped PVP in 2 out 3 cases.
Maybe because this is only one study - there are other options with as good
or better sucess rates depending on the condition specifics. What we try to
do is provide information on all surgical options, and the research is that
some procedures have more success than others on different individuals. The
research you mention is in the journals section of the website. read read
read remember!
You will of course remember the excellent article Trevor provided on
microsurgical denervation recently where in carefully selected cases some
98% of men were relieved.
Trevor is anti-vasectomy too, yet he provides interesting links and factual
articles. Several of the things he has provided us with are on the website
and regularly read. Why don't you take a leaf out of his book and do the
same rather than making it up????
>
> As usual you want to question anyone who does not agree with your
> dogma. Also, why don't you produce the studies that say rare. How many
> men did they interview or did they just take doctors word for it?
I believe we have posted rather a lot of studies over the years. You don't -
you simply choose to quibble and re-write endlessly what others provide. I
note your latest reference to the chinese study you suddenly have noticed
what it actually says. Had you not read it before then? Read read read
remember!
>
> Respectful discussion and Trifold. That I believe is an oxymoron.
Fact and Steve Law I think is one. Should you be allowed to post what you
simply make up unchallenged?? I think not, and that's what this is all about
isn't it?
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
trifold
> trifold,
>
> You forgot to mention that you and others discount claims that
> reversal is the best option despite an earlier post by a UKer that his
> doctor said reversal helped PVP in 2 out 3 cases.
I have personally posted medical studies showing reversal is a
successful treatment for pvp. When I decided on a vasectomy, I was
moved in part by my knowledge that this was an option if things went
wrong. My point has always been that reversal is not the *only*
treatment for pvp. Furthermore, I have said that do not believe it is
the best treatment, esp. when the source of the pain is backpressure.
Conversion to open ended seems a better choice: it is less
complicated, cheaper, with less recovery time. Plus, you get to stay
sterile.
Steve Law
Yes, I have always read the Chinese article. I want to know if you and
Trifold believe that its results should be shared with potential
vasectomy patients by the doctor? The answer seems to be, No. Or am I
reading you wrong.
It comes down to do you believe men should be informed with all the
information?
I do, and I believe it is the medical establishment and the individual
doctor's responsibility.
As to reversal versus other cures. All options should be considered.
The major reason for PVP from my understanding is not back pressure,
but granulomas, the reaction to the sperm in the scrotum. Open ended
does not help this, reversal does. As usual you keep information from
men on the options.
Steve L
Steve Law
I have a news clipper that gives me knew vasectomy articles when they
are released. I recently posted the 2/1 tubal to vasectomy. I posted
the Australian versus NZ vasectomy rates. I posted the article that
derived the number of tubals in USA. As usual you only post attacks
and convenietly forget your mis-steps (we all make them).
As to reversal. You don't tell men that most PVP seems due to the
leakage (inflamation and granulomas) due to closed or open ended
vasectomy and thus the BEST way to prevent further PVP would be
reversal. You don't give men ALL the information so they can make an
informed decision, you prefer they make the Trifold or David decision.
Steve L
David
>
> It comes down to do you believe men should be informed with all the
> information?
>
> The major reason for PVP from my understanding is not back pressure,
> but granulomas, the reaction to the sperm in the scrotum. Open ended
> does not help this, reversal does. As usual you keep information from
> men on the options.
Erm.... putting all this on a website that gets 500-600 daily user sessions
(several thousand "hits") per day is keeping things from people???????
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
David
> I have a news clipper that gives me knew vasectomy articles when they
> are released. I recently posted the 2/1 tubal to vasectomy.
> I posted
> the Australian versus NZ vasectomy rates. I posted the article that
> derived the number of tubals in USA. As usual you only post attacks
> and convenietly forget your mis-steps (we all make them).
Actually, the vastectomy/tubal figure was posted by another poster, and you
simply assumed it was fact. It was me that did the research and posted the
source of the figure. You did indeed post the australian statistics and one
of the articles posted on tubal stats.
Nobody is perfect, we all make mistakes - I accept that. The point is you
repeatedly simply make things up (such as the recent debacle) and when
proved wrong say "It was error/mistake" etc.
>
> As to reversal. You don't tell men that most PVP seems due to the
> leakage (inflamation and granulomas) due to closed or open ended
> vasectomy and thus the BEST way to prevent further PVP would be
> reversal.
What is your evidence for this statement?
> You don't give men ALL the information so they can make an
> informed decision, you prefer they make the Trifold or David decision.
Steve, we try very hard to do this. You simply make things up to suit your
agenda and hope you don't get caught. See the recent thread for your made up
figure if you need an example.
I don't post to get numbers of converts, but I think that *is* part of your
agenda. Male health, informed consent and factual information is on my
agenda though.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
Steve Law
No, posted the cite to the 2/1 tubal study. The poster had stated 5/2.
As usual you assume and state what you want. No, I don't make up
facts. I do express opinions based on facts, that is on occasion will
express a view of how the facts add up. You, Trifold, and others do
the same. Such as use detection bias as an explanation for facts you
don't like. I argue your logic, but don't accuse of making up facts.
You seem to apply different rules; David may draw inferences, others
may not.
As to causes of PVP. Get real - most of the indications from posters
here (usually from their doctor) say the pain comes from blow outs and
the inflammation or granulomas due to that.
http://www.brucerosemanmd.com/id98.htm
above states 75% of reversals for PVP helped
But yes there are other causes, so yes a course of treatment should be
based on a carfule diagnosis, afterall it might just be due to a
nagging wife (This is your favorite explanation, or am I mistaken).
Steve L
David
> facts.
See the "Something the doctors aide said" thread. You simply made up a
figure quoting an out of print book that you assumed we'd never be able to
check on. Plenty of other examples of your making things up are available.
Want a list?????
>
> As to causes of PVP. Get real - most of the indications from posters
> here (usually from their doctor) say the pain comes from blow outs and
> the inflammation or granulomas due to that.
> http://www.brucerosemanmd.com/id98.htm
> above states 75% of reversals for PVP helped
I asked a sensible question - no need to be so tetchy.
>
> But yes there are other causes, so yes a course of treatment should be
> based on a carfule diagnosis, afterall it might just be due to a
> nagging wife (This is your favorite explanation, or am I mistaken).
You *ARE* mistaken, and you know it.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
trifold
>
> Yes, I have always read the Chinese article. I want to know if you and
> Trifold believe that its results should be shared with potential
> vasectomy patients by the doctor? The answer seems to be, No. Or am I
> reading you wrong.
>
> It comes down to do you believe men should be informed with all the
> information?
What is "all the information" in your view? That one study shows men
with vasectomies have higher DHT levels but unchanged LSH and FSH
levels even 20 years after vasectomy but that it is not clear this is
because of vasectomy or because they started that way or maybe because
they routinely had more sex, possibly because they *were* vasectomised
or maybe because of the kind of vasectomies they had in the first
place?; and that in any case, subsequent studies have shown men with
vasectomies have no higher incidence of prostate cancer even though at
first doctors thought they might because of these DHT levels? And
that antisperm bodies show up in some men with vasecotomies (and lots
of men without) but that other studies show no increase in autoimmune
disease in vasectomised groups? And that studies show that
vasectomised men live longer than men without vasectomies (but that
this is almost certainly due to detection bias)?
>
> I do, and I believe it is the medical establishment and the individual
> doctor's responsibility.
Well, it is. And the "medical establishment" has done a pretty good
job of
this--witness the journal articles available to all of us. Individual
doctors are sometimes not so good. We have said before men need to be
better advised about vasectomy, especially risks of complications. The
website document on first consult, in fact, explicitly advises men to
ask about possible complications and how they can be treated. David
put this document up long ago, Steve, when you were still calling the
Chinese study "the Red Chinese study," making up stories about their
are studies showing vasectomy lowers testosterone levels over the
longterm and that doctors should tell men about these studies. (In
the meantime, you have never pointed us to a single study supporting
your claim.)
>
> As to reversal versus other cures. All options should be considered.
> The major reason for PVP from my understanding is not back pressure,
> but granulomas, the reaction to the sperm in the scrotum. Open ended
> does not help this, reversal does. As usual you keep information from
> men on the options.
I agree with you that there are different treatments for pvp depending
on its cause. I have never said anything else--in fact, we here have
been careful to draw attention to the importance of proper diagnosis
and to the variety of treatments. As to reversal as an option, we
have posted studies about it as a successful treatment. But we have
always warned against it as a first choice for men who want to remain
sterile, suggesting alternatives. We have not kept information from
people, we have made it more available, unlike you. As for your
claim that "the major reason for pvp. . is not back pressure, but
granulomaas," would you be so kind as to reveal how you arrived at
this "understanding?" Can you provide information regarding any
studies you have seen that substatiate this claim? (Why do I feel
we've been down this road before?)
trifold
>
> As to reversal. You don't tell men that most PVP seems due to the
> leakage (inflamation and granulomas) due to closed or open ended
> vasectomy and thus the BEST way to prevent further PVP would be
> reversal. You don't give men ALL the information so they can make an
> informed decision, you prefer they make the Trifold or David decision.
Why do you say most pvp is caused by granulomas? Where is the evidence of this?
trifold
> here (usually from their doctor) say the pain comes from blow outs and
> the inflammation or granulomas due to that.
> http://www.brucerosemanmd.com/id98.htm
> above states 75% of reversals for PVP helped
Blowout would be due to backpressure, Steve--and arguably could be
prevented without reversal.
>
> But yes there are other causes, so yes a course of treatment should be
> based on a carfule diagnosis, afterall it might just be due to a
> nagging wife (This is your favorite explanation, or am I mistaken).
My own view is that pvp of the longterm variety is generally due to
bothched surgery, like Trevors, whose tubes were sealed too close to
his testicles. Or to surgery that damages nerves. The two causes
could be treated differently: reopening the testicular ends of the
vas and/or removing the epidydimi; or spermatic cord denervation.
Reversal might work as well in the case of backpressure. But it seems
to me it is a more expensive and complicated solution than reopening
the vas tubes (and more risking because of possible complications).
Plus, it has the the great disadvantage of restoring a man to his
"natural" state: he will have to go back to rubbers--or to putting his
partner back on bc.
Bilirubin
You'll also note my routing comes via a similar direction. I however am not
either, although I've posted under two nicks.
1.5 years post vas and I'm just as excited about it as ever--and the sex
life, well, we're having fun ;)
Jason A.
"David" <david...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:phEka.1376$LP1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
Steve Law
Well maybe its a conspiracy. David it always looking for conspiracies
or claim others are looking for them.
Toronto - never been that far north, never to Canada. That is quite a
stretch of the cable company.
1.5 years of fun! I hope it goes on for another few years, lets say
20-30 years minimum.
Steve L
David
> Oh god. He/they's a Torontonian/s. I might bump into him/them.
Well, he might go there on holiday but he certainly doesn't live there.
Before anyone has a fit of apoplexy, maybe a few words of explanation. Isp's
use the headers of emails/posts to track users in case of complaints. They
use all of the header info, including looking up IP block allocations hence
find the ISP server location. Then complaints can be handled by the posters
ISP.
The tracker services are available, but they aren't free. I have use of one
as part of my webhosting package. I used to use it on the old chatroom. I
could sit there and see where the posters were located. In the case of
certain individuals who worked for major employers, the employers server and
location was identified.
In posting the header info I was trying to enable others to see what the
tracker program tells me, but for free. However, it would appear that
without the IP lookup it doesn't tell you all you need to know.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
Giraud
> The tracker services are available, but they aren't free...
If you want to look up an IP, just type (if you have access to unix/Linux):
"whois [IP ADDRESS]@whois.arin.net"
Giraud
Giraud
>
>> Oh god. He/they's a Torontonian/s. I might bump into him/them.
>
> Well, he might go there on holiday but he certainly doesn't live there.
From tracing the NNTP-Posting-Host field:
Looks like "September Gurl" posted from a Kinkos copy store sometimes, and
other times from Milwaukee Public Library.
Looks like "Steve" posts through Cox Cable of Atlanta, Georga - I assume
he's on their cable modem service.
Both use Google, so I assume Google sets the IP to the IP where the HTTP
(web) connection originates for that session.
Giraud
Steve Law
Atlanta?? No, I am in the Pacific time zone. But it would not surprise
me if the cable company used some from distributed servers.
WI for Sept Gurl - Oh Well, looks like our paths will only cross in
this ng.
Steve L
David
> WI for Sept Gurl - Oh Well, looks like our paths will only cross in
> this ng.
Well Steve - If the Wisconsin public library bit is correct, I know who it's
likely to be. If you ever did meet up I'd like to be a fly on the wall!
David
Ugly
husband to have a vasectomy? proclaiming:
>
>> Oh god. He/they's a Torontonian/s. I might bump into him/them.
>
>Well, he might go there on holiday but he certainly doesn't live there.
Hey I love Toronto and wish I could live there. Had my brain surgery there a year ago,
before the czars' scare.
ROB
> HI,
> I'm 33 and my husband is 38. We have 2 boys, ages 13 and 10. We are
> very comfortable and both agree we don't want any more children. We are
> getting to a point where we are free to do alot of things now. However,
> my husband insists he will not have the vasectomy. He has many friends
> and family members who did it and knows it is a fairly simple procedure.
> I don't want to be on birth control pills anymore as I am trying to lose
> weight. We don't really like condoms. So, I think a vasectomy is the
> best way to go. The pills are expensive every month and under his
> insurance, he could have the procedure for only $20. How do I convince
> him to do this?? This is really beginning to effect our sex life!!
> Thanks for your help!
I was away when this was originally posted, so I'm going to take a
stab at it now since it doesn't seem to be going away.
If I'd have been pushed into a vasectomy, I'd still be an intact
male. Men will resist this pressure, it's our nature, if you value
your relationship, you'll back off. A vasectomy isn't for everyone. I
did 6 months worth of research and still had some misgivings after
having had my vasa stretched by the first urologist.
All good medicine,
GREENFEATHER
ROB
> > I think the person behind the intial post should seek some family
> > counseling.
> > I think there is more here than what she is telling us.
> > THERE IS NO REASON WHY YOU SHOULD FORCE YOUR HUSBAND INTO DOING
> > SOMETHING HE DOESN'T WANT TO DO.
> >
> > I think that she (and the previous woman- Susan Nichols) would want
> > her husband to be an obedient eunuch. To hell with these domineering
> > wives.
> >
> > It is easier to stop one egg than millions of sperm.
> >
> > www.dontfixit.org
>
> Ah. I've heard this line before. The claim that vasectomy is an
> impostion on men. Let's face it, lots of men get it done so they
> don't have to use rubbers. Others because they understand the dangers
> of hormonal birth control.
I got mine so that we could shag like minks and not plopp out
sproggen!!
Essure has been out a very short time and I'm going to look at the
death rates for it. I overheard a conversation that scared the hell
out of me regarding Essure.
Steve, would you rather abortion be used, because that's what would
happen if my wife got PG?? This was yet another reason that I chose a
vasectomy. Inquiring minds wanna know!!
All good medicine,
GREENFEATHER
Jon
> Ceas...@webtv.net wrote in message news:<7732-3E8...@storefull-2336.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
>> He has many friends
>> and family members who did it and knows it is a fairly simple procedure.
>> I don't want to be on birth control pills anymore as I am trying to lose
>> weight. We don't really like condoms. So, I think a vasectomy is the
>> best way to go.
Well you'll have to let him make up his *own* mind on that- you really can't
force the issue. How would *you* feel if he was pressuring you to have a
tubal ligation? A vasectomy is a very personal decision. Don't ask him to
do something you'd not be willing to do yourself. I'm going to be havong a
vasectomy soon. Why? Well... I'm 40 and don't have any children so it is
alogical decision. My partner has breast cancer so the BCP is *very*
contraindicated and she is allergic to spermacide and can't (physical
reasons) have an IUD. Fair enough it is my turn & I'm happy to do my part.
Funny- as soon as the possibility of a breast cancer diagnosis was
apparent I told her I'd go for the vasectomy ASAP. She was *very* unhappy
about that and (to a small degree) still is. The only thing that makes her
OK with that decision is the knowledge that the vasectomy is *my* decision
and not driven by her or her situation. Bottom line- respect your partner
or find one that you wish to respect. Harsh words but you can't expect
someone to *ever* do something for them that you would not do for them.
I'm lucky to have a partner that respects me. She'll be with me when the
procerdure is done and, hopefully, for the rest of my life.
Bests,
Jon
Ugly Person
have a vasectomy? proclaiming:
>Don't ask him to do something you'd not be willing to do yourself.
You're right. I don't think many women would be willing to have a vasectomy.
Mike
the story.
And thanks to the laudable efforts of people like Steve, words of
caution and consequence still find there way into what would otherwise
be jocular and gratuitous gabble.
Justice still seems to play a big part in this, a price to pay, a
promise to keep. Getting balls cut into is a part of being a "good
husband"..
There should be lots of debate, investigation, reflection and serious
concern regarding having a vasectomy.
Lots of debate, and doubt.
Mike
Giraud
> Justice still seems to play a big part in this, a price to pay, a
> promise to keep. Getting balls cut into is a part of being a "good
> husband"..
From your post, I assume you come from the viewpoint that vasectomy is
something that typically is asked of a husband by his wife (and there is
that typical "I suffered pain, so you do your part now" theme). As we have
seen so many times here, this angle often causes resentment. It has become
clear that this should generally be avoided, since it seems to come back
and bite many.
It seems that the mainstream male is adverse to having his testicles messed
with. The reasons are complex and evolutionary, perhaps. The discussions
here are a good example of human nature under study.
Remember that there are indeed men here who took the journey of their own
volition, like myself. In these cases there is no resentment, so this
factor is absent.
You are right that there are risks, and all sides should be heard. I
personally see truth as the goal of this newsgroup, and it is elusive
indeed. We must take all viewpoints here with a large grain of salt.
Giraud
David
> Debate is also healthy, it means that there is more than one side to
> the story.
In a discussion group you need to have people with different viewpoints.
Without this there isn't a discussion IMHO. So I agree with you.
>
> And thanks to the laudable efforts of people like Steve, words of
> caution and consequence still find there way into what would otherwise
> be jocular and gratuitous gabble.
I understand this to be an extension of the comment above - no difference in
viewpoint would be "jocular and gratuitous gabble". However, I also sense
that you feel the group should be here to promote the negative side for the
greater part.
The history of the group is that it started out as a Deja news community a
few years back. The idea originally was to have a forum where those
considering vasectomy could chat with those that have had it done. One
poster (also named Mike) wanted to bring the negative side to people's
attention, so provided a balance originally. When we moved to mainstream
Usenet, the charter was written so that all viewpoints on vasectomy were
welcomed.
A few of the posters have been here a long time, and the regular posters are
bound to engage in a bit of jocularity and banter - we know each other, so
it's inevitable.
>
> Justice still seems to play a big part in this, a price to pay, a
> promise to keep. Getting balls cut into is a part of being a "good
> husband"..
I think all posters here would agree that nobody should have a vasectomy
under pressure or obligation. Do it for yourself, or if you do it for the
benefit of the relationship then make sure it's what *you* want, and are
happy with having it done is the advice we all give.
Some men that come here (and to the website chatroom) clearly are doing it
for the wrong reasons, and we advise them to wait until they are sure, or
abandon the idea. Conversly, others come here having made the decision and
are happy with it, and are looking for support from their fellow man. We
should cater for all groups in our discussions IMHO.
>
> There should be lots of debate, investigation, reflection and serious
> concern regarding having a vasectomy.
>
> Lots of debate, and doubt.
If by "Lots of debate, and doubt" you mean that anyone considering vasectomy
should be routinely scared witless, then that isn't the function of the
group. If that's what they want to happen, then there are places on the
internet they can go to have that need fulfilled.
Giraud hit the nail on the head by saying the goal of the group is truth,
and individuals personal viewpoints (whilst interesting) should be taken
with a pinch of salt.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
Mike
This is a complex issue that has advocates and critics.
However, "Own volition" is never in a vacuum, never on your own. There
are always pressures, "good reasons" if you like, for those
considering going under the knife. Voluntarily making permanent
alterations to your body, via surgery, is a personal and intimate
decision, made, obviously, for an insistent and compelling
circumstance.
There is no middle ground here. There is only for or against.
Therefore, Like those herein who argue in favour, I will argue
against, dissuade, whenever possible, those who will listen to my
counsel.
Mike
Mike
Having a vasectomy is a grievous and serious matter. Who is in a
position in deciding appropriate advice for the undecided?
You firmly believe that the benefits easily outweigh the risks and are
willing to advocate that belief (correct me if I am wrong here). Your
contribution, with a grain of salt.
To retort "scared witless" I could say "reckless invitation".. naw..
not worth the time.
I am as convinced as you are, it is just that we are on different
sides of the fence.
Mike
trifold
> Debate is also healthy, it means that there is more than one side to
> the story.
>
> And thanks to the laudable efforts of people like Steve, words of
> caution and consequence still find there way into what would otherwise
> be jocular and gratuitous gabble.
Words of caution, yes. But not a lot of consequence, I'm afraid.
Debate requires sustained engagement, presentation of evidence,
response to criticism, point and counterpoint. In short, argument.
>
> Justice still seems to play a big part in this, a price to pay, a
> promise to keep. Getting balls cut into is a part of being a "good
> husband"..
I don't follow you here. Could you explain yourself? Are you arguing
men get vasectomies because they feel they ought to? And that this
makes their decisions thoughtless? That they are somehow blinded to
dangers by what you consider societal pressure to "do their duty?" If
this is what you thin, then say it. Then people could debate you on
these points. You, of course, would have to produce evidence to
support your claims. And you would have to respond to those who cast
doubt on your arguments, your evidence, etc.
My view is that at this point you are relying not on "words of
consequenc", but insinuation.
trifold
mic...@teleline.es (Mike) wrote in message news:<d1d9238d.03042...@posting.google.com>...
> Debate is also healthy, it means that there is more than one side to
> the story.
>
> And thanks to the laudable efforts of people like Steve, words of
> caution and consequence still find there way into what would otherwise
> be jocular and gratuitous gabble.
Here you seem to be saying that all exchanges here not directly
inspired by Steve Law's comments are merely "jocular and gratuitous
gabble." This is insulting to all sorts of people who participate in
any number of serious exchanges not inspired by the need to respond to
Steve's posts (which often require contradiction in the interest of
informed choice).
>
> Justice still seems to play a big part in this, a price to pay, a
> promise to keep. Getting balls cut into is a part of being a "good
> husband"..
Here you rely on insinuation, without clearly stating a point of view.
This is a maneuver that makes debate impossible.
trifold
Make your arguments then re: the risks of vasectomy. But why begin by
claiming that men who choose vasectomy are under pressure? One could
just as easily argue that the decision not to have vasectomy, but
instead to rely on less effective bc or to require one's partner to
practice bc or to not practice bc at all, is compelled by tradition,
inertia, fear and ignorance. (Of course, that would get us nowhere.)
Your starting point seems calculated to deprive those who would
contradict you of any legitimacy: they are dupes in the hands of
feminists, it seems. This is a very old "debating" tactic not
designed to arrive at truth.
David
> Having a vasectomy is a grievous and serious matter. Who is in a
> position in deciding appropriate advice for the undecided?
Anyone posting a question here will get a variety of responses and advice
which they may make of the advice/information what they wish. That's what
happens in a Usenet forum. The point I made was that posters here from all
the representative viewpoints agree that nobody should have a vasectomy done
under pressure - why does this cause a problem for you?
>
> You firmly believe that the benefits easily outweigh the risks and are
> willing to advocate that belief (correct me if I am wrong here). Your
> contribution, with a grain of salt.
They don't in all cases, and if I feel that the person posting the question
is likely to regret the decision I will make my point, and counsell against
vasectomy until he is sure, or abandon the idea. In all cases, I try to
answer the question the poster actually asked, as opposed to turning the
question into one I think *should* have been asked then answer it from a
prefixed agenda.
>
> To retort "scared witless" I could say "reckless invitation".. naw..
> not worth the time.
It might pay you to do some research into what my posting mainly consists of
rather than simply jump to conclusions. You clearly think that I spend all
my time banging a recruiting drum, however that isn't the case. I believe
that anyone wanting to have an elective procedure done certainly needs to
have informed consent. I also believe that informed consent means that
medical information is balanced and factual. I spend most of my time here
discussing studies and claims made that are made up, misrepresented,
misleading or just plain wrong.
It's interesting that in this group, and elsewhere it's claimed that men
dont get the full facts, yet people making these claims mainly post what
they claim to be facts, yet are unverifiable. If there is a claim that men
aren't been given the facts, why not give them verifiable facts??
> I am as convinced as you are, it is just that we are on different
> sides of the fence.
Well, if you want to post against that's on charter so fine by me. It will
be interesting to see if any specific claims you make are verifiable, and
accurately represented though. Time will tell.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
Giraud
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:36:57 -0600, Giraud babbled on about Re: How do I
> convince my husband to have a vasectomy? proclaiming:
>
>>Remember that there are indeed men here who took the journey of their own
>>volition, like myself. In these cases there is no resentment, so this
>>factor is absent.
>
> Not always. My wife still wonders from time to time, what if we had a boy?
> What would it be like? Would he get along with his older sister?
> What if we had another girl? Would they be similar? Different?
Well, all I was saying was that when there is no pressure, and when you do
it because you want to, there is no resentment on your part towards another
person (e.g. your spouse), since there was no pressure from that person.
Giraud
Giraud
> Therefore, Like those herein who argue in favour, I will argue
> against, dissuade, whenever possible, those who will listen to my
> counsel.
Right, Mike, what exactly about vasectomy is bad in your opinion. Let's
assume no one is being pressured, which we all agree is bad. As others
have said, you clearly are against it. Why? Are your reasons medical,
religious, philosophical?
Giraud