Help! 8 days on and things don't seem to be getting better...
Paul Reid
Last Friday my number finally came up and I went under the knife. A couple
of days later one side swelled up, which I figured was just normal.
However, I had to take a trip to the emergency doctors this morning as the
swollen side had reached football like proportions. It was causing me that
internal sort of pain during the night I sure you all know and love
(something which had previously been reserved for when I stood up). Also the
stitches had started to bleed pretty constantly (probably due to immense
internal pressure!).
The doctor put be on antibiotics, and send he'd send me back to the hospital
on Monday (he hinted they *might* want to open me up again to remove the
clotting!! Which, if I'm honest, scared me shitless...)
My question is, has anyone else experienced this sort of thing?? And if so,
how was it resolved? (and how long did it take!)
Thanks in advance
Paul
Jason G
>My question is, has anyone else experienced this sort of thing?? And if so,
>how was it resolved? (and how long did it take!)
Yes, I got a post op infection and hurt like a glass-toothed bitch. While
mine didn't quite reach football proportions, it was very very very VERY
tender and somewhat distended. It took 10 days on Cipro to get rid of, but
after that I was fine.
Incidentally, the Cipro gave me the worst case of the shits I've ever had.
But it worked.
--
Jason G
"I was on Cipro when Cipro wasn't cool..."
Mike Cronis
evil and suck. After about 2 weeks, I was able to walk. By 4 weeks, the
pain was mostly gone. It's now 9 weeks and I have occasional soreness in my
lower abdomen, the swelling is gone (as well as the bleeding). Sort of
feels like I did too many crunches or got smacked in the stomach with a 2 by
4 a few times (sometimes). I figure that pain will go away too, like a torn
ligament might. I was pretty fucked-up for at least 4 weeks though.
Happens sometimes, according to some reports online. Seems to be about 1 in
5 get messed up somehow or another.
Annoyingly enough though, my "motile sperm" count is still above "5", which
means I ain't sterile yet at 9 weeks. According to several reports though,
average time is 9 to 12 weeks.
Still wish the internal soreness would go away though. Usually hurts about
an hour after "releasing". Sigh.
Mike
PS Good luck. All things heal in time. In your case, try antibiotics.
It's what's for dinner! Made ya smile.
"Paul Reid" <paulja...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ut10d$gre$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Benicio Del Toro
I hope this teaches you a lesson. Never get an operation on your
penis. Next step after swollen dick syndrome is amputating the cock.
At least you won't get anyone pregnant.
trifold
This sounds like hematoma (internal bleeding). It is one of the
recognized potential short term complications. I think it happens to
maybe 3.4% of men who undergo vasectomy (lucky you!). You have done
the right thing going back to the doctor. It's good to he will see
you again Monday (that's today, I just realized!) The books say the
liklihood for full recovery is 100%. (Of course, that doesn't make up
in the short term for the pain, I know!)
BTW, did you use ice etc. right after the snip and did you take it
easy? Also, did your doc. give you any antibiotic for right after the
procedure. Finally, which version did you have--nsv or conventional
scalpel version?; closed or open ended?
Let us know how things turn out. We are all pulling for you!
Paul Reid
You hit the nail on the head (sadly!). Here's the story:
I went back to hospital on Monday, by which time I was in *a lot* of pain. I
was admitted, and told that they'd do a ultrasound that evening, and take it
from there. At around 7pm I got a visit from a nurse, who said they wouldn't
be able to do the ultrasound that day, so I'd have to wait till the morning.
About an hour later, a head poked around the curtain. It was the surgeon who
performed the original op. (conventional scalpel, BTW). He had a feel
around (whilst tutting, and muttering things like "oh dear, oh dear" & "so,
so unlucky"). Eventually he announced it was a hematoma, and he wanted it
out that night! He asked me when I last ate (around 6pm), and said he'd get
on to the anesthetist & try and schedule surgery for midnight.
From my bed, I could hear his side of the telephone conversation, from which
it was clear the anesthetist was not keen to do it that night. When he
returned, he confirmed this, but said "he'd work on her" and asked me not to
eat anything just in case.
By about 11pm I'd still not heard anything, so decided to go to sleep. As I
was dozing off, I heard a woman's voice, on the same phone around the
corner. She was clearly having a slightly heated discussion about something.
When she'd completed the call, I could hear her talking to someone else on
the ward. Just as I was starting to doze off again, I heard her say "..then
he said his testicle was as risk, so I had to agree!".
Needless to say I got out of bed and hobbled around to the nurses station.
It turns out she was the anesthetist and, surprise, surprise all systems
were now go for midnight. I said to her we'd wait unless she was 100%
confident, but she said she was, and the only reason for her apprehension
was that there's not as many people around at that time of night, in case
things go wrong.
She also said there were 100 other surgeons who could have done it in the
morning, but he only wanted to do it that night because he was booked all
day Tuesday and so he wouldn't have been able to do it himself...
Needless to say, at least on a subconscious level, I wasn't overjoyed about
the whole situation (especially having to have a general anesthetic after
all the negative spin I'd been fed to get me to have the vasectomy under
local in the 1st place...)
Anyway to cut a long story longish, when I came around I felt really, really
weak (like I'd been hit by a truck). Turns out when they tried to bring me
around, my whole body had gone stiff as a board. So, they immediately put me
back under to consider their options. Then they gave me a drug (haven't
looked into this stuff yet), which they apparently give to patients in for
serious ops, which paralysis the muscles. Then they tried again. The same
thing happened, but to a lesser extent, then my whole body shook (minor
convulsion, I guess), and I came around.
How scary is that!?!!
Anyway a side effect of this drug is that you feel really weak for a couple
of days (*every* muscle was comprehensively screwed).
BTW, as well as removing the hematoma, they also put a drain in, which came
out on Wednesday before I was discharged.
As for my (now not so) privates, I'm still really swollen on one side.
However, I can sit comfortably at least and no more shooting pains up my
side towards my abdomen (although still tender to the touch). Surgeon says
take it really easy for a while and I'll be looking at around 6 weeks before
I can even think about getting back to sports. Also said I'm looking at up
to 6 months for the swelling to go completely (don't care as long as it
feels OK before that!)
Trifold, thanks for the 100% recovery statistic. That's real encouraging, as
no matter how hard you try to keep positive, when things go this wrong with
your dangly bits, doubts do start to creep in...
I was wondering, can any of you folks shed any more light on the what they
might of pumped into me to ease me out of the general?? (I'm still a bit
shook up about that whole thing; glad I'm youngish as vaguely fit!)
Thanks
Paul
"trifold" <tri...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:207978f8.01121...@posting.google.com...
Steve Law
I, too, hope for your recovery. Some points that may not ease your
pain.
[] I have no idea where Trifolds "100%" recovery or even near recovery
rate comes from. I could not find anything on David's site that said
anything remotely that recoving from emergency surgery for a hematoma
due to vasectomy had near %100 recovery. Then again the non-recovery
may be reported as 'statistical flukes' - Mr. Trifold has been known
to put the most positive spin on the vasectomy surgery and its
aftermath. (non supporters of vasectomy are held to a much higher
standard of providing cites and sites for their claims in this
newsgroup.)
[] You ended up stating the obvious reason for the doctors insistence
upon surgery so late, when he and the other doctor were tired. He
wanted to do it himself. Why? If another doctor did the surgery and
had an adverse opinion as to the original work it left open the
possibility of adverse litigation. (But then again I am not a believer
that every doctor puts his patients interest absolutely first.]
Good luck to you and God's speed in a quick recovery,
Steve L
"Been There, Done That, Still Paying The Price"
trifold
Jeesh, what a scary story! You should definitely write this up for
the website (www.vasectomy-information.com)
"Paul Reid" <paulja...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<9vfe2a$nvp$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> Congratulations!
>
> You hit the nail on the head (sadly!).
Or cracked the nut (sorry!).
>Here's the story:
>
> Needless to say I got out of bed and hobbled around to the nurses station.
> It turns out she was the anesthetist and, surprise, surprise all systems
> were now go for midnight. I said to her we'd wait unless she was 100%
> confident, but she said she was, and the only reason for her apprehension
> was that there's not as many people around at that time of night, in case
> things go wrong.
Yikes!
>
> She also said there were 100 other surgeons who could have done it in the
> morning, but he only wanted to do it that night because he was booked all
> day Tuesday and so he wouldn't have been able to do it himself...
Well, at least you know the urgency wasn't due to things going bad
real quick!
>
> Needless to say, at least on a subconscious level, I wasn't overjoyed about
> the whole situation (especially having to have a general anesthetic after
> all the negative spin I'd been fed to get me to have the vasectomy under
> local in the 1st place...)
Naturally enough.
>
> Anyway to cut a long story longish, when I came around I felt really, really
> weak (like I'd been hit by a truck). Turns out when they tried to bring me
> around, my whole body had gone stiff as a board. So, they immediately put me
> back under to consider their options. Then they gave me a drug (haven't
> looked into this stuff yet), which they apparently give to patients in for
> serious ops, which paralysis the muscles. Then they tried again. The same
> thing happened, but to a lesser extent, then my whole body shook (minor
> convulsion, I guess), and I came around.
>
> How scary is that!?!!
Scary scary! Another argument for doing the vas. under local whenever
possible!
>
> Anyway a side effect of this drug is that you feel really weak for a couple
> of days (*every* muscle was comprehensively screwed).
>
> BTW, as well as removing the hematoma, they also put a drain in, which came
> out on Wednesday before I was discharged.
Sounds very thorough.
>
> As for my (now not so) privates, I'm still really swollen on one side.
> However, I can sit comfortably at least and no more shooting pains up my
> side towards my abdomen (although still tender to the touch). Surgeon says
> take it really easy for a while and I'll be looking at around 6 weeks before
> I can even think about getting back to sports. Also said I'm looking at up
> to 6 months for the swelling to go completely (don't care as long as it
> feels OK before that!)
How soon before you can resume sex?
>
> Trifold, thanks for the 100% recovery statistic. That's real encouraging, as
> no matter how hard you try to keep positive, when things go this wrong with
> your dangly bits, doubts do start to creep in...
Understandably. But it sounds as though you are in very good hands.
>
> I was wondering, can any of you folks shed any more light on the what they
> might of pumped into me to ease me out of the general?? (I'm still a bit
> shook up about that whole thing; glad I'm youngish as vaguely fit!)
I don't know anything about this, unfortunately.
Good luck, and please keep us posted. BTW, which procedure did you
have, nsv or conventional? Closed or open-ended? And did you do
anything strenuous right after the procedure that precipitated this?
trifold
An addendum to my comment that hematoma is a known but rare
complication. According to a May 2000 article published in Fertility
and Sterility, a national survey of practioners (32% responding) found
that the incidence of hematoma varied by the experience of the
prationer: surgeons who did 1-10 vasectomies/year reported 4.6% of
their patients developed hematoma; doctors who did 11-50/year reported
2.4% developed hematoma; and doctors who did more than 50/year
reported a figure of 1.6%. Rates of hospitalization for hematoma
followed a similar pattern: patients of the least experienced doctors
were hospitalized for hematoma at a rate of .8%; the middle group at
the rate of .3%; and the most experienced at only .2%. I don't know
how experienced your doc was, but anyway you cut it (sorry for the
pun!), you are one unlucky dude!
Basically scrotal hematoma is bleeding into the scrotum. It is
dangerous when it doesn't stop and puts pressure on the testicles or
threatens blood supply or leads to infection. But it can be simply
treated--they just go in and stop the bleeding, clean out the
clotting, and drain anything that has accumulated.
"Paul Reid" <paulja...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<9vfe2a$nvp$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
trifold
> Paul,
>
> I, too, hope for your recovery. Some points that may not ease your
> pain.
>
> [] I have no idea where Trifolds "100%" recovery or even near recovery
> rate comes from.
http://health.yahoo.com/health/diseases_and_conditions/disease_feed_data/hydrocele/index2.html
Steve Law
I went and read the link. No mention of vasectomy caused hematoma. No
mention of vasectomy caused Hydroceles. Mentions that unless a hernia
is also present you need not 'rush' the surgery while doctors are
tired.
No mention of long term or short term complications, just that if
surgery is needed that an 'excellent outcome is expected.' Most
doctors expect an excellent outcome in most sugeries they do except
those where the disease itself is immediately life threatening. But
expecting an excellent outcome is not a statistical 100% or near 100%
full recovery.
As I stated before: Mr. Trifold makes overly postive assesments of
vasectomy and its risks, both short and long term. Where necessary he
will ignore statistical flukes and he will ignore the real damage
done. You, Paul, would not be having any troubles if you had decided
to not have a vasectomy in the first place, not have a surgery that
had nothing to do with correcting a real health problem. Your doctor
rushed to surgery, maybe because a few hours might have made a
difference, maybe because he did want another surgeon to see the
damage caused by his first surgery.
Truth is sometimes not pleasant, like the aftermath of unnecessary
surgery. And nay sayers here in this ng are held to a much higher
standard of proof than those that proclaim vasectomy is safe enough.
Birth control is a serious issue between couples. Vasectomy is a
legitimate option under some circumstances. My complaint is that the
full risks are not being given men so they truly make an informed
decision.
Again, my best wishes for a full recovery,
trifold
My, my, aren't we the little terrorist!
stev...@my-deja.com (Steve Law) wrote in message news:<47cbbd02.01121...@posting.google.com>...
> Paul & Trifold,
>
> I went and read the link. No mention of vasectomy caused hematoma. No
> mention of vasectomy caused Hydroceles. Mentions that unless a hernia
> is also present you need not 'rush' the surgery while doctors are
> tired.
Doesn't say anything about doctors being tired. Why would hematoma or
hydrocele caused by vasectomy be any different from other kinds?
>
> No mention of long term or short term complications, just that if
> surgery is needed that an 'excellent outcome is expected.'
You should see the things they say about other surgeries! "Excellent
outcome" is good news in surgery land.
> Most
> doctors expect an excellent outcome in most sugeries they do except
> those where the disease itself is immediately life threatening. But
> expecting an excellent outcome is not a statistical 100% or near 100%
> full recovery.
Your right, there, Steve. Maybe I shouldn't have said 100%. Fact is,
there is no evidence any of these surgeries lead to problems.
Everywhere the surgery is described as simple.
Statistics show hematoma is a possible complication of vasectomy, even
a complication that might require hospitalization. (.2 % in the case
of vasectomies performed by experienced surgeons.) Hematoma removal
is comparable to hernia repair, actually much simpler. So does that
make vasectomy "safe enough?"
Steve Law
Tsk!! Tsk !! Mr. Trifold.
You mistake the risks of vasectomy. You get called on it and you
resort to name calling to distract from the simple fact that you lead
men to believe things that are not true.
I hope Paul did not rely on you for his belief that his vasectomy was
low risk. He was not fixing any health problem he had, he was probably
trying to do the socially responsible thing and was not given the true
facts as to the risks he faced.
Vasectomy is a viable birth control option. This option should only be
excercised after full disclosure of the risks, including the rate at
which surgeons who perform the procedure have had it themselves. There
are more than enough surgeons who perform the surgery that a
statistically valid rate can be gotten.
My bet is that the rate is far lower than the general population. My
contention is that risks are high enough that practitioners of
vasectomies do not have the surgery themselves (exceptions of course
will occur).
Readers should read David's Web Site and dontfixit.org to get an idea
of the type of positive and negative information available.
But declaring the procedure or even recovery from complications 100%
safe is unconscionable given the stories that are frequently posted
here. You cannot claim ignorance to the stories posted here - or do
you believe that all negative stories are false and only stories
related to safety are true?
Using scare tactics (where have I seen that before) by name calling to
try to silence those that point our your fallacies and misleading of
men (recall your complete ignoring of statistical flukes).
I am very happy for you that you have not suffered any of the very
real complications of vasectomy - ignorace is bliss. It is truly the
ignorant who resort to name calling when the world does not bend to
their will. (Next thing we know you will be calling those that
disagree with you "The Great Satan." You have started down a path that
leads me to believe you are zealot who cares only for that folks
follow your dogma and you will exagerate your claims and curse those
that dare question your great prophecy.)
My hope is that men and their partners will read, read, read all that
is available. They will question everything to see if it passes the
common sense test. My hope is that they read entire journal articles
and books. Why? You only get one chance at this. Spend the time to
truly understand.
The Only True Risk Free Vasectomy is No Vasectomy.
The Only 100% effective birth control is total abstinance (we have
stories here where pregnancy showed up after a vasectomy - I believe
including in partners of men who were declared sperm free - the wonder
of it all!).
trifold
> Trifold,
>
> Tsk!! Tsk !! Mr. Trifold.
>
> You mistake the risks of vasectomy. You get called on it and you
> resort to name calling to distract from the simple fact that you lead
> men to believe things that are not true.
If the shoe fits, wear it, Steve. A terrorist is someone who seeks to
get his way or win his point by instilling fear. And that is all you
do at this newsgroup. Over the years you have tried to convince men
that vasectomy leads to prostate cancer, testicular cancer, autoimmune
disease, untreatable pvp, and (your favorite) low testosterone and
impotence. You have also insisted the entire medical and scientific
world is engaged in a massive conspiracy to cover up the truth about
vasectomy. Your method is to make dark references to various studies
without citing them, then to disappear when you are challenged. Now
you are trying to tell Paul that he is doomed to further suffering,
apparently because his doctor insisted on acting promptly to address
his condition, no doubt through an abundance of caution. (If the
doctor hadn't done this, what would you have said?)
Oddly enough, given the present thread, while you have consistently
insisted on risks that medical science has proven do not exist, I
don't recall you ever mentioning the risk of hematoma, which is the
risk Paul has been unfortunate enough to encounter. I have not sought
to hide this risk. In fact, I am the one who pointed out to Paul that
he probably was experiencing hematoma. As you may recall, I also
urged Paul to post his very harrowing story to our website. Is this
the action of someone who wants to hide the risks of vasectomy? I
should point out, also, that the risk of hematoma is mentioned at
several points at the website, including in the article "Safety and
Effectiveness of Vasectomy," to which I frequently refer men. And at
the website we warn men to immediately return to their doctor if they
experience exceptional swelling, something which Paul was very wise to
do.
One thing I do try to do here is to help men think about their risks
(including how to minimize risk). That's why we ask about versions of
vasectomy, experience levels of surgeons, recovery regimens. On the
other hand, the only advice you give is to not go for the vasectomy
because "The Only True Risk Free Vasectomy is No Vasectomy." You also
helpfully inform us that "The Only 100% effective birth control is
total abstinance." I suppose both statements are true. But the same
could be said of crossing the street. And this is not very helpful to
most guys (who, by the way, are also factoring in the risks to their
partners of other forms of bc or no bc at all). As for your advice to
men who experience complications, the only thing I have heard you
recommend is ice. On the other hand, we have gone to great lengths to
explore and publicize various treatments that have good track records,
urging men to change doctors if necessary to get the treatment they
deserve.
I must say I think you have sunk to new lows in your reply to Paul,
whose situation you seem to be trying to exploit by fanning
unreasonable fears. Hematoma repair is a very simple procedure. Yet
you would have him believe he is a doomed man, all as part of your
silly quest to keep anyone from having a vasectomy ever.
Steve Law
Nice rant! But again you misstate things as usual.
David and you often do not refer any further than stories or cites on
David's web site. I do the same, but include the donfitit.org site
also.
You are right, I often give you and David the last word. So, I don't
comment on the same weak protestations you give each time (we have had
several circle jerks in the past - all sperm free I might add - need
mine checked since reversal). Some threads need to come to an end. You
should be happy that I give you the last name calling and the ability
to spin last your provasectomy dogma.
If men read the full journal articles, recognize the 10 out 12
controlled studies are significant no matter how many words the
pro-vasectomy medical establishment tries to 'spin' it - vasectomy is
shown to increase the rate of prostate cancer. There are two large
correlated studies of medical related workers (but NOT doctors) who
also show increased rate of prostate cancer giving some lie to the
fact that vasectomy itself is only done by guys who frequent doctors
more often, thus vasectomy guys are more likely to have their prostate
cancer more readily detected. Guys go to the doctor more often who
have vasectomies because of complications due to vasectomy, including
prostate cancer, PVP (which I put hematoma in that category; PVP ain't
just the epididymis congestion). BTW: See article on David's web site
for this info.
End of thread for me - use it against me.
David
David
> Nice rant! But again you misstate things as usual.
>
> David and you often do not refer any further than stories or cites on
> David's web site. I do the same, but include the donfitit.org site
> also.
But the site in actuall fact the site contains many links to other sites -
it's a collection of the web's best information on vasectomy. It's also
worth noting that the medical profession have recently honoured the site
with a HON certificate. This means they have reviewed the site, and it
passes the tests for acuracy of information and lack of bias. Can the same
be said for the booksellers site?
>
> You are right, I often give you and David the last word. So, I don't
> comment on the same weak protestations you give each time (we have had
> several circle jerks in the past - all sperm free I might add - need
> mine checked since reversal). Some threads need to come to an end. You
> should be happy that I give you the last name calling and the ability
> to spin last your provasectomy dogma.
Wrong - we don't promote positive spin, but we do spend a lot of time
correcting your factually incorrect postings.
>
> If men read the full journal articles, recognize the 10 out 12
> controlled studies are significant no matter how many words the
> pro-vasectomy medical establishment tries to 'spin' it - vasectomy is
> shown to increase the rate of prostate cancer. There are two large
> correlated studies of medical related workers (but NOT doctors) who
> also show increased rate of prostate cancer giving some lie to the
> fact that vasectomy itself is only done by guys who frequent doctors
> more often, thus vasectomy guys are more likely to have their prostate
> cancer more readily detected. Guys go to the doctor more often who
> have vasectomies because of complications due to vasectomy, including
> prostate cancer, PVP (which I put hematoma in that category; PVP ain't
> just the epididymis congestion). BTW: See article on David's web site
> for this info.
How about posting sources? I wrote a lot of the site and even I don't know
to what you refer this time.
Re the cancer studies - I had an interesting email recently. One worried
person downloaded the document (once I had posted what you meant) and did
some work. He then emailed me pointing out something I hadn't noticed. You
state 10/12 studies. You are getting this from the top portion of the table,
the table contains 17 studies. The text (which you summarily dismiss)
contains reference to 38 studies. I agree that maybe the table should be a
full tabulation of results, but the authors have chosen to tabulate the
studies that found some correlation and in the main not tabulate those that
dont.
What does this tell us about your spin?
David
David
"Steve Law" <stev...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:47cbbd02.0112...@posting.google.com...
> Trifold,
>
> Tsk!! Tsk !! Mr. Trifold.
>
> You mistake the risks of vasectomy. You get called on it and you
> resort to name calling to distract from the simple fact that you lead
> men to believe things that are not true.
>
I think "Mr" is as bad an insult as "Little terrorist", in that it is
gramatically offensive. The other comment I'm sure wasn't meant with any
offence - in any case there has been some goading going on here!
Re all the "Positive spin" and "Mistaken risks" comments - I think there is
something not being understood here. Steve, on occasions you have said
positive things avout the group website, and I believe you genuinely
understand the wish of those responsible for it have to ensure that men are
communicated the risks as well as the benefits.
Who is repsonsible for it all? You often call it "David's site", and that is
true as far as I'm the one who can cobble together the HTML/ASP/JAVASCRIPT
necessary for it to run, and pay the hosting costs. In other respects it's a
joint effort in that I'm not the only content editor, and I don't write all
the content. It is probably not evident, but a lot of the content is the
submissions of many others, and some of the material that discusses PVP and
has a high hit rate is in fact penned by Trifold.
So what isn't being understood is that we do counter positive propaganda as
well as negative propaganda - we are trying to "Cut through the crap" to
provide the informstion me do need to make an informed decision. Therefore I
feel that the positive spin comments are unwarranted. I also feel the
misunderstanding the risks comment is unwarranted too.
We all have our disagreements, and don't see things in the same light but I
think we all have the wish that men considering the procedure have the
opportunity to make an informed decision without pressure.
> I hope Paul did not rely on you for his belief that his vasectomy was
> low risk. He was not fixing any health problem he had, he was probably
> trying to do the socially responsible thing and was not given the true
> facts as to the risks he faced.
>
> Vasectomy is a viable birth control option. This option should only be
> excercised after full disclosure of the risks, including the rate at
> which surgeons who perform the procedure have had it themselves. There
> are more than enough surgeons who perform the surgery that a
> statistically valid rate can be gotten.
Risks are relevant, but if the lady who performs your procedure has had one
or not is entirely irrelevant. I'm about to have yet another mid-life
crisis, and when I get my nipple pierced I'm not interested in if the person
doing it has one or not - I'm interested in the cleanliness of the
envirnoment, if the person is registered with the local health authority,
what the complication/infection rates of the person performing the piercing
are. Similary with vasectomy - the only think worth considering is what the
surgeons rate of post vasectomy problems are. No point on insisting it's
done by a man who has one already when he may in fact have the worst safety
record imaginable or it's his first day in the job. Go for someone with
experience and a proven record of low complication rates.
In addition, whereas it's quite right and proper to scrutinise a
practitioners experience and rates of complication/competency etc, it is
arguable that as individuals they do have a right to privacy in what they
do, or don't do in their private life.
Another email I got was along the lines of "Why does this jerk keep saying
doctor's don't have vasectomies then post about the gianvannucci study"?
Well?
David
Paul Reid
OK folks
1st, here's a quick progress report.
Some of the main stitches have come undone, leaving an open wound of about
20x10mm. Looks pretty gruesome, but no pain thankfully (if it hurt anything
like it looked I'd be in real trouble!). The nurse who changed the dressing
on Tuesday took a swab. When I went in this morning to get the dressings
changed again, she phoned the lab who informed her that it was, in fact,
infected. So, she called the GP, who put me on a course of Augmentin 500mg.
Well, at least Christmas doesn't look as grim as I 1st thought 'cos at least
you can drink on the stuff :)
On a brighter note there's no internal pain (which *would* worry me) & I'm
sure, over (probably lots off) time, the swelling will go down (still a
pretty big hard lump in there, but it's much smaller than it was)...
BTW, since I sent the original story (which, if Dave wants to put on the
website, he's more than welcome), I've received a private email from another
guy, who's in pretty much the same boat I was in, just before I was referred
to hospital to have the hematoma evacuated (he was due to visit his GP
because of an increase in pain/swelling the day I got his mail)...That was a
few days ago now, and I've not heard anything since.
Poor guy.
If you're reading this, then keep your chin up as things *do* improve (OK,
so I'm not quite out the woods yet, but I'm confident I'm on the mend).
Now, vasectomy politics (a whole new branch of politics I never previously
knew existed...)
1stly, Steve. It is true that it's highly unlikely that your average guy off
the street (ie. me) would have *any idea* of the possible complications on
the way into their pre-snip consult. It is also true, they'd most likely be
none the wiser afterwards. This is an extremely valid point, which can be
made in around a paragraph or two. In fact, I'd say this is the main problem
with the 'vasectomy industry' which should, ideally be tackled in the
surgery during consultations (after all, not every guy with too many kids
has access to the internet).
However, your posts paint you as a person who is *extremely* anti-vasectomy.
Fair enough, everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
It has to be said though, you seem more than willing to use any available
statistic/testimony to support your own agenda. To then use them to portray
tabloid style scare stories is no help to anyone. I'm trying to be impartial
here, but, if you read your previous posts, overall you come across as
borderline fanatical (I sincerely am not trying to be insulting here).
Why not just post your own (I'd imagine somewhat negative) story on Dave's
website?
IMHO, the wrong way to address this problem is to have two, oppositely
polarized web sites (this is medicine, not religion!).
Now Dave. Your site contains personal stories, for better of worse, which I
applaud. Hopfully the weighting of negative/possitive stories in someway
refects the statistics. However, I think you should put more emphasis on
urging your visitors to read these, *especially* the bad ones (when I had a
brief look before the snip, I know I didn't).
Just so people know what to expect *if* things do go wrong (no matter how
statistically unlikely).
Also, the overall tone is perhaps a little too "pro" for comfort.
Folks, all these "have one", "don't have one", "have one", "don't have one"
threads are no help to anyone.
alt.advocacy.vasectomy anyone? :)
Paul
PS. Now if someone asks me if I think they should have a vasectomy I say
'ask someone else' ;)
PPS. Sorry Steve, but then I'd send them over to Dave's site.
David
> 1st, here's a quick progress report.
>
> Some of the main stitches have come undone, leaving an open wound of about
> 20x10mm. Looks pretty gruesome, but no pain thankfully (if it hurt
anything
> like it looked I'd be in real trouble!). The nurse who changed the
dressing
> on Tuesday took a swab. When I went in this morning to get the dressings
> changed again, she phoned the lab who informed her that it was, in fact,
> infected. So, she called the GP, who put me on a course of Augmentin
500mg.
>
> Well, at least Christmas doesn't look as grim as I 1st thought 'cos at
least
> you can drink on the stuff :)
>
> On a brighter note there's no internal pain (which *would* worry me) & I'm
> sure, over (probably lots off) time, the swelling will go down (still a
> pretty big hard lump in there, but it's much smaller than it was)...
Thanks for the update, and I'm glad you are looking forward to a less grim
christmas.
>
> BTW, since I sent the original story (which, if Dave wants to put on the
> website, he's more than welcome), I've received a private email from
another
> guy, who's in pretty much the same boat I was in, just before I was
referred
> to hospital to have the hematoma evacuated (he was due to visit his GP
> because of an increase in pain/swelling the day I got his mail)...That was
a
> few days ago now, and I've not heard anything since.
>
> Poor guy.
>
> If you're reading this, then keep your chin up as things *do* improve (OK,
> so I'm not quite out the woods yet, but I'm confident I'm on the mend).
OK, if you want me to I'll post it. Problem is my newsreader archives for
only a short time so I'd be grateful if you could email me it and any update
and I'll post it asap.
>
> Now, vasectomy politics (a whole new branch of politics I never previously
> knew existed...)
>
> 1stly, Steve. It is true that it's highly unlikely that your average guy
off
> the street (ie. me) would have *any idea* of the possible complications on
> the way into their pre-snip consult. It is also true, they'd most likely
be
> none the wiser afterwards. This is an extremely valid point, which can be
> made in around a paragraph or two. In fact, I'd say this is the main
problem
> with the 'vasectomy industry' which should, ideally be tackled in the
> surgery during consultations (after all, not every guy with too many kids
> has access to the internet).
I think this is also recognised by the guiding medical bodies. A lot of the
studies suggest better counselling especially with regards to complications,
however individuals don't always carry these reccomendations into practice,
hence our trying to make people aware and hope they get ideas of questions
they'd like to ask from reading the posts here or the group site.
>
> However, your posts paint you as a person who is *extremely*
anti-vasectomy.
>
> Fair enough, everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
>
> It has to be said though, you seem more than willing to use any available
> statistic/testimony to support your own agenda. To then use them to
portray
> tabloid style scare stories is no help to anyone. I'm trying to be
impartial
> here, but, if you read your previous posts, overall you come across as
> borderline fanatical (I sincerely am not trying to be insulting here).
>
> Why not just post your own (I'd imagine somewhat negative) story on Dave's
> website?
I have actually asked if he'd like to do this several times on group but no
reply. Although I think his story would be useful to others I respect his
right to privacy.
> IMHO, the wrong way to address this problem is to have two, oppositely
> polarized web sites (this is medicine, not religion!).
I think there are many sites on vasectomy - not just two. However we only
ever seem to talk about two of them here! When we find something of use or
interest on the web we post a link to it, or borrow the text for the group
website.
>
> Now Dave. Your site contains personal stories, for better of worse, which
I
> applaud. Hopfully the weighting of negative/possitive stories in someway
> refects the statistics. However, I think you should put more emphasis on
> urging your visitors to read these, *especially* the bad ones (when I had
a
> brief look before the snip, I know I didn't). Just so people know what to
expect
> *if* things do go wrong (no matter how statistically unlikely).
Thanks for the feedback and you make some fair points. Just to give you some
feedback on the website usage pattern, below are December (so far) section
hits. The chatroom is a bit of a throw to the stats as it refreshes every
three second and that shows in the stats.
Chatroom 105633
Stories 6489
Medical journal extracts 1518
moreinfo (linked to from faq/other sections) 1052
humour 1032
vasectomy pictures 893
faq 887
childfree 874
survey 775
checklst 542
links 211
news 87
To break down the stories section (which doesn't need much advertising), the
most read stories are those who have problems or written by women. The
childfree stories, those that promise a sexual thrill, stories that fall
into the "straighforward no problems - glad I did it" mould and those from
the long term veterans are read less often. Those will dull or obscure
titles the least read
>
> Also, the overall tone is perhaps a little too "pro" for comfort.
OK, point taken. I get a fair amout of comment on the stance of the site,
and equal condemnation from those who want it to be more anti, and those who
want it to contain less negative stories etc. I've always strived to get a
balance that satisfies all, but this is impossible to achieve. I'm always
happy to have suggestions - most of them get implemented. What would help is
specific incidences of where things could be worded differently, or improved
upon in some way or constructive criticism of any section/article anyone
thinks needs working on.
>
> Folks, all these "have one", "don't have one", "have one", "don't have
one"
> threads are no help to anyone.
Totally agreed.
>
> alt.advocacy.vasectomy anyone? :)
Interesting idea, but I think you'd end up with the same people discussing
the same things in two places!
David
trifold
I'm glad to hear you are on the mend, and hope recovery continues
well. Also, that alcohol is not off limits!
In the vein of helping others who come after you, I'm wondering
whether you can give any advice? Does your doctor think this could
have been avoided? Also, do you mind telling us which procedure you
had--conventional or nsv; closed or open-ended?
As for "vasectomy politics," I guess I am partly responsible for
turning up the heat on occasion; and sometimes I do wonder what good
the "he said, he said" threads actually do. If I were convinced
everyone looking in on us took the time to look through earlier posts,
where particular claims (and counter claims) have been addressed, I
suppose I wouldn't be so quick to jump back into the fray.
Anyway, have a great holiday. And thanks for sharing your experience.
I hope all continues well. And do keep in touch!
trifold
"Paul Reid" <paulja...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<9vvleq$47a$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
David
> I'm glad to hear you are on the mend, and hope recovery continues
> well. Also, that alcohol is not off limits!
Quite!!
> As for "vasectomy politics," I guess I am partly responsible for
> turning up the heat on occasion; and sometimes I do wonder what good
> the "he said, he said" threads actually do.
nothing much IMHO
> If I were convinced
> everyone looking in on us took the time to look through earlier posts,
> where particular claims (and counter claims) have been addressed, I
> suppose I wouldn't be so quick to jump back into the fray.
I read a couple of "Anorak" (and if you are outside the UK don't even bother
to ask for a translation) newsgroups where the same threads keep occurring.
Personally I think that some people *do* read the threads and then do the
research, but in the main I'm fairly sure that most will read the current
thread. Hence the need to address past posts.
David