Am I the only person bothered by unnecessary surgeries on women?

[SarahB]

Hysterectomy and Cesarean Section are two of the most commonly preformed surgeries in country. Many times they can be procedures that are either life saving for a mother and child or life-saving for a women (my mother had a hysterectomy at 50 due to uterine cancer- a VERY necessary reason). Again, this is not to make someone feel bad (I had 4 cesareans myself) or to say neither procedure is ever necesary, but it is to provide some thought. Why is this happening? Does it matter? And when in this country can we be more than our wombs?!

This is a feminist issue, folks and very little is ever said about the subject. It's about control of our bodies, just like the issue of choice to terminate a pregnancy.

In regards to cesareans, which as I last heard was the most common major surgery preformed in the United States, the World Health Organization recommends a 10-15% rate for optimal health for mother and child. The United States has a 26% rate. You might think more babies are helped or saved by that, but no. Our infant mortality rate worldwide ranks at #34, somewhere between Aruba and Taiwan and well behind such countries as Macau and Slovenia. http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Infant_Mortality_Rate_aall.htm
C-sections carry 4 to 8 times the risk of death for mothers (source: http://www.ican-online.org/resources/statistics4.htm ) as opposed to vaginal births, again, often necessary, but not without risk.

In regards to hysterectomies, which I believe is the second most common surgical procedure in the US, many conservative estimates give that 30% are not necessary. Most are done for such conditions as fibroids, endometriosis, and pelvic inflammatory disease which can now be treated in other ways with less risk to the women, both physical, emotional, and sexual, but many physicians remain untrained in newer techniques and do not discuss other options with their patients.

Book list:

Misinformed Consent: 13 Women Share Their Stories About Unnecessary Hysterectomy by Lise Cloutier Steele

The Hysterectomy Hoax: The Truth about Why Many Hysterectomies are Unnecessary and How to Avoid Them by Stanley West, M.D.

No More Hysterectomies by Dr. Vicki Hufnagel

[bryant69]

1. Well

Obviously this is a problem, and it's laudable that you are bringing it to our attention. The problem, however, does not present a solution we could all get behind immediately. President Bush is a problem of which there are many solutions, some more likely than others, that we can discuss. But my newly acquired knowledge of the dangers of Hysterectomies doesn't seem to lead anywhere, unless I heard a friend saying, "Hey I'm thinking of getting a Hysterectomy, what do you think?" Then I could say, "What was that, I wasn't really listening." Or "Maybe that's a bad idea; a large number of Hysterectomies are performed unnecessarily."

Do you have any thing else we as individuals could do to fix this problem?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[SarahB]

2. So I shouldn't post this?

It's okay to post a thread where a women refuses a cesarean and when we don't necessarily know the complete medical facts, dozens of people dismiss her as "crazy".

Obviously, the vast majority of of us want Bush out, but this is a feminist issue nonetheless.

[bryant69]

3. I didn't say you shouldn't post it

It's an important issue and well worth knowing about.

But you also shouldn't expect every to drop everything and respond to your post either; I mean the title of your message is basically designed to make us all feel guilty because we aren't addressign this issue, isn't it?

[SarahB]

6. Drop everything and respond to my post?

People choose what they want to respond to here, do they not? I can't MAKE anyone feel guilt. Unless, you're a surgeon knowlingly preforming unecessary surgeries, you'd obviously have nothing to feel guilty about.

This thread is to provide additional because of this very large, long thread posted by someone else http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1223633 to get people to think a little before they rush to judgement. Otherwise, I would have never brought up the issue. In fact, I don't think I did.

[Warpy]

8. It deserves to be heard

After all, just because it only applies to a slight majority of the posters on this board shouldn't disqualify it.

Add to that the story in Utah of the woman who is being charged with murder because she refused a Caesarian and delivered one stillborn twin, and you do see what the political problem might be, a problem which will only get worse if Bush is not ousted.

Because the power structure as well as the medical profession are still largely male, womens' bodies are still seen as deformed male bodies. Yes, attitudes like this ancient one die hard. We have a wry saying that no uterus is ever good enough to leave in, and no testicle is ever bad enough to remove.

Gender politics are very uncomfortable for most people to confront, but they're the most pervasive we face.

[SarahB]

12. This stuff does make people very uncomfortable

Lots of emotions are tied to it, but in my opinion, the idea of choice for women and what they decide for their bodies extends beyond the choice of abortion. It's a slippery slope when a government can make these decisions.

[koopie57]

10. I think if you

stop to think about it, you might have a solution to the problem or be encouraged to read more about it by checking out the links she provided. I stopped to think and one solution that came to me is that we encourage women/men to do more research before having surgery. I bet there is an internet group that discusses this type of thing too.

[aquart]

4. Caesarean babies are smarter. Whole IQ points smarter.

That birth canal is one nasty brain batterer.

[SarahB]

9. Do you have a study that shows that?

I have never heard of those statistics before.

On the other hand, there has been proof that not breastfeeding lowers IQ (* see statistical references below), should women face legal consequences for not doing that? (Obviously I don't think so, because it's HER BODY(!!!), but along these same lines, a potential arguments could be made.)


*
1)Pollock, J.I.
"Long-term associations with infant feeding in a clinically advantaged population of babies."
Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 1994; 36(5);429-40


2)Morley R., et al
"Mother's choice to provide breastmilk and developmental outcome."
Arch Dis Child 63:1382-1385, 1988.


3)Morrow-Tlucak, M, et al.,
"Breastfeeding and cognitive development in the first two years of life."
Soc Sci Med 26:635-639, 1988.


4)Bauer G, et al.
"Breastfeeding and cognitive development of three-year-old children."
Psychological Reports 68:1218, 1991.


5)Taylor B, et al.
"Breastfeeding and child development at five years."
Dev Med Child Neurol 26:73-80, 1984.


6)Lucas, A. et al.
"Breast milk and subsequent intelligence quotient in children born preterm."
Lancet 1992;33;261-62.


7)Lucas, A., et al.
"A randomised multicentre study of human milk versus formula and later development in preterm infants."
Arch. Dis. Child 1994; 70;F141-146

[koopie57]

13. uhm...so I take it

you were delivered naturally? :silly: (I'm just teasing ..... it was too hard to resist :loveya: )

on edit: This was to post 4. Sorry SarahBelle that it looks like I was giving you a hard time.

[SarahB]

14. Yes I was

And I probably should have been a cesarean because my poor mom's vagina was cut open with surgical scissors while they forced forceps into her cervix to get my head out. But hey, women's health and issues of feminism and choice are pretty funny subjects. :eyes:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. You are right on

my sister in law had two unneccessary C sections because the doctors wanted to "know" when the births were going to occur. No reason to wait for nature-they had better things to do at two o'clock in the morning!

The unnecessary surgeries and now this idiot claim of "murder" because a woman wouldn't have a C section shows there is still an element of society that thinks a woman has no right to say what happens to her own body. It is disgusting, and something I sincerely hope President Kerry addresses.

[koopie57]

7. I understand your concern and frustrations

and I agree that it is a problem. But I think that many doctors do try to avoid unnecessary surgeries. My brother is a doctor. My sister-in-law had an emergency c-section for her first baby and was concerned about the second one. He encouraged her to go for regular delivery, she did and I have heard her often talk about how she was so grateful he encouraged her. I also work in the pathology lab at one of our hospital and I know that the doctors become very concerned when a specimen shows up that is difficult to determine if it is cancer or not. They run stains, pass it around to the other pathologists, and sometimes send it out to specialists at major facilities to make sure they don't call it malignant if it is not.

I guess maybe cuz of the numerous lawsuits and being overworked might play a role, I don't know. Even though you should be able to trust your doctor, maybe women need to do more research before having these surgeries. Posts like your most likely make a difference, even if just for one woman, that is how big things happen.

[latebloomer]

11. You're not the only one

I really think many caesareans are done because they are easier scheduled, usually take less time, and are more lucrative.

Agreed also on hysterectomies-- a friend of mine, age 43,recently had a total hysterectomy because she kept getting benign ovarian cysts. She was plunged into an early menopause and is happy as a clam to go on estrogen replacement therapy. When i suggested there was a greater risk of breast cancer she blithely replied that breast cancer doesn't run in her family. O-kay. . . I decided to butt out.

[Mikimouse]

15. It's good for the economy...

Sarcasm, of course. The history of surgical treatment of women's illnesses is full of examples that underscore the maltreatment of women. One example will suffice. The radical mastectomy was first revealed by Halsted in 1874, and was used as the routine treatment of breast cancer until well into the 1980s, even though there was strong evidence that it was not necessary. The first study to offer alternatives was begun in 1935 by Dr. Vera Peters (Toronto) and the results published in 1960 in Strasbourg, France (presented at an international conference). The study included some 8000 patient studies and demonstrated that lumpectomy with radiation therapy was just as effective in most cases (comparing recurrence and recovery rates) as radical mastectomy. The AMA dismissed the work (selectivity bias, as if these folks really know any statistics that don't support their own agenda, but that's another discussion). The work was replicated by various teams (English, Danish, French, and Italian). All of the these studies were ignored as well, until the US government finally funded 7 groups of researchers to study the same issue. Now, you must be seated while you read this, because it may shock you. They made the groundbreaking discovery that all of the previous research was valid. Imagine that!
SO, why did this happen as it did? Consider the economics of it. With a radical mastectomy, there is a hospital stay involved, as well as surgical fees, anesthesiologist fees, etc. In other words, the mostly male status quo makes a bundle off of it. With a lumpectomy and radiation therapy, it becomes day surgery (no hospitalization), the surgical fee is greatly reduced, and the people most likely to be radiation oncologists are women. The whole 'balance of power' is shifted away from traditional areas. This generally does not change easily. Moreover, there is a program of prophylactic mastectomy being advocated now (2004, and has been around for a few years), for young women in whose families there is a 'strong' history of breast cancer. This, even though one of the most recent articles I read stated that 614 (if memory serves, I don't have the article in front of me) of these prophylactic mastectomies, the number of cancer deaths avoided was something like 8. Oh well, they are just women anyway (sarcasm again). I say this. If we are to do prophylactic mastectomies on such women, then we should be doing equally aggressive treatment in men with family histories of prostate cancer and seminoma. In other words, penile amputation and bilateral orchiectomy. What's good for the goose...

[SarahB]

16. Another problem

Women without insurance often DO NOT get necessary surgery for this very reason. Another reason for single payer IMHO.

[Mikimouse]

17. No argument from this camp...

I am a firm advocate of socialized medicine. As my grandfather once stated: "American physicians are not healers, they are businessmen". He said that after he had just been offered a position at San Francisco Med. Ctr. (in 1965) at $1000/week if he would defect. He and my grandmother were allowed to visit us in the US from Hungary for 6 months. He happily returned to his practice in Hungary, treating many patients for free, or for bartered goods (a chicken here, some bacon there) and had a clear conscience. He and my other grandfather are my two greatest examples.