is there no end to their foolishness?

Hmm, I wonder why they didn't just go in through the umbilicus, cut off the appendix, stuff it in the intestine, sew up the hole and let the appendix come out through the anus of its own accord????? I don't think they have taken this far enough!!

But seriously, (yes, I was serious about letting the appendix come out by itself!)

It really says a lot about the priorities of surgeons, or is it just pandering to the market?

ie Does "Do no harm" mean "Leave no scars" in medi-speak?

And why the fuss about transvaginal surgery now? They have been doing it for years with gyn surgery and all sorts of conditions that are accessible through the nose and mouth. What is the big deal? And are they going to access men's appendixes through the penis? Let's see how acceptable that is! Eeeeeiiiiiuuuuwwww!!!!

I hope somebody does make a fuss about the internal damage done by sending blunt needles through tissue. And I hope some women with scarred vaginas and nerve damage speak up about the damage caused by incisions in the vagina.

The really upsetting thing about this is that the male option is not discussed, and that the vagina is regarded as an orifice, not as an organ in itself. How much understanding do these guys have of the human body? Maybe a general surgeon is not expected to know how the vagina operates, and how it is connected to other function of other parts of the woman's body, because it is not a part of his speciality? I don't know how they think.

Maybe the whole thing is a media beat up by a journalist who is only reporting selectively. I hope so. Geez! Good story though.

Louise

I think it goes right back to "The World is Flat". If you can't see evidence of the damage to the human body, it doesn't exist. If you can't perceive evidence of a disability/disease, it doesn't exist. Eg mental illnesses, lupus, prolapse, etc. It is the symptoms that make disease a problem, ie until/if it kills you, then it doesn't matter any more.

There may be something in the idea of not creating an incision, if it means that less damage is done by the instruments on the way in and on the way out by doing it by an alternate route. They have been doing gall bladder removal by keyhole surgery for years, putting the keyhole quite close to the organ, ie the shortest route of damage possible through the smallest incision possible. (Not sure about that, maybe they use the umbilicus, which at least keeps all disturbance above the waist!). I wonder why they choose the vagina instead of the gullet? There is a tube called the digestive tract that passes right past the appendix and the gall bladder, and nearly every other organ as well. The digestive tract is a big dirty superhighway that runs the whole length of the torso, with a natural orifice at each end! Dirty may be the reason why not.

On the other hand, I suspect that about 90% of surgeons are male, and have no concept of the vagina as something a person wouldn't want interfered with or scarred unnecessarily. I suspect it is just a thing you dip your cock in whenever you get the chance. Therefore, there is very little reason to keep it free of scar tissue, despite the fact that it is a blind alley as far as surgical instruments are concerned, and it is way down the bottom round the corner, far away from most other organs.

Why bother with damaging a vagina when you could equally well use a natural skinfold if scarring is an aesthetic problem? Isn't that what all the cosmetic surgeons do when they remove excess skin and fat from the torso?

I really don't get it, but I suspect that the vagina is just a useful out-of-sight area, as far as many surgeons are concerned. Hey, many of them wouldn't even use the word vagina in front of a patient.

When Dr Thierry Vancaillie was talking about pudendal nerve entrapment at the GAIN seminar I attended he was asked why doctors don't use the correct anatomical terms with patients, instead using a different word, eg talking about the vulva, but using the word vagina. Very confusing for a woman who is trying to understand what he is talking about! His reply was (delivered in a slightly ironic tone), "You can't change long standing traditions overnight." Why was I the only one laughing, and muttering, "Why?"??? He also added that there are cultural sensibilities to respect as well, eg there are some cultures where it is not culturally acceptable to use the correct terms without offending.

I have noticed that on these Forums there are Members who choose not to write the certain words, using nicknames or substitute characters to infer the word being communicated. That's fine by me, and I hope I don't offend for using the anatomical terms, and talking about deities and culturally sensitive subjects. Sorry if I do offend, but I think it is important to use the correct terms to avoid confusion in an area which we are all trying to understand more and better.

However, I think that surgeons need to explore the cultural sensitivities of each patient before they start talking in riddles, or else there is no point in them saying anything. When in Rome ...

If they can't even say the word, how much respect are they going to have for the integrity of the organ???

Cheers

Louise

my fav. is 'vaginal rejuvenation'. I get a visual of a vagina on a beach chair with sunglasses and a martini. 'course all it means is cutting some off and stitching it smaller.

This sounds as though they think they have really made a huge discovery medically.

I say be afraid, be very very afraid!