TopManFL (imported) wrote: Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:38 pm One concern about having a 22 year old males prostate removed in urinary incontinence. Assuming you'l live to 95 years of age that's 73 years worth of urine dripping constantly.

Not all prostatectomies leave a man unable to hold his bladder. But, some do. Yes, the laparoscopic surgery is better than an open procedure at sparing nerves and thus keeping a man able to pee when he wants to. But, there's always the risk.

Someone on here can correct me if I'm wrong by even with full SRS the prostate is normally left in place.

It would indeed be a tragic story if a 22-year-old male had to have his prostate removed, and his surgeon botched his surgery leaving him completely incontinent, and he only lived to be 95, and he never found a remedy for his urinary incontinence even 73 years into the future. Fortunately, I am not a male, nor will I be having a prostatectomy when I am 22 years old.

I am also under the impression that it is extremely rare for the prostate to be removed "with full SRS." Many people would say it is very unusual to be concerned with harmless things you can't even see.

I prefer the more recent term GCS, as in "genital confirmation surgery," not "gender confirmation surgery." Although, in that case GCS could refer specifically to a prostatectomy, so we wouldn't be able to use it like we did SRS in this context.

Anyway, even if I wanted to keep my prostate, there would be many obstacles to my nullification that call its practicality into question. But I will remain optimistic until I have consulted with appropriate surgeons, if for no other reason than to sustain my mood and productivity.

TopManFL (imported) wrote: Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:38 pm One concern about having a 22 year old males prostate removed in urinary incontinence. Assuming you'l live to 95 years of age that's 73 years worth of urine dripping constantly.

Not all prostatectomies leave a man unable to hold his bladder. But, some do. Yes, the laparoscopic surgery is better than an open procedure at sparing nerves and thus keeping a man able to pee when he wants to. But, there's always the risk.

Someone on here can correct me if I'm wrong by even with full SRS the prostate is normally left in place.

having a prostate left intact has been one of my most enjoyable pleasures since nullification. The orgasms that wonderful little organ produce are heavenly. And in over 25 years I've never had a problem with urinary leakage. Unless of course I ignore my bladder screaming at me for several hours. But then again even when I had a penis that was true. So I question the removal of the prostate unless there is cancer involved. Everything else can go. Scrotum, testes and penis as has been my choice. Life has been so much better since then.

While this is a public forum and advising against prostate removal may be useful for other individuals, please remember to respect my feelings. My body, my rules. What is right for one may not be so for another. I will not lightly make life-impacting decisions, as I have many hopes and dreams that require a physical body in good working condition. But I am certainly not removing my penis and leaving my prostate in place afterwards. It's all or nothing.

No previous posts necessarily warranted this kind of statement, but I wanted to make things clear for the future. I can be a little sensitive.

Dekeldoh (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 7:46 am It would indeed be a tragic story if a 22-year-old male had to have his prostate removed, and his surgeon botched his surgery leaving him completely incontinent, and he only lived to be 95, and he never found a remedy for his urinary incontinence even 73 years into the future. Fortunately, I am not a male, nor will I be having a prostatectomy when I am 22 years old.

It bothers me you describe a prostatectomy resulting in incontinence being the result of a surgeon botching the procedure. I'm not being purposely difficult when I say that.

Where I'm having difficulty is it's the implication that a surgeon performs the wanted surgery, explains the risks of which incontinence is one. Then a patient has the surgery, comes out of it upset that they're incontinent, then claims their surgery was botched. It wasn't botched, and they were informed before hand incontinence is a possibility.

This is where informed consent comes into the picture. You had said something before about it being a model, and I disagreed with the statement, again, not to be difficult. All informed consent is, is a patient giving a physician permission to perform a procedure on them as part of their medical practice. In the case of the prostatectomy, the patient would be informed incontinence is a possible side-effect, and consent to that surgery having been INFORMED of that. Hence, informed consent.

What TopManFL was saying, even with a flawless surgery, incontinence could result. That wouldn't be the doctor botching anything. Even the best surgeon could end up giving a result producing incontinence. Doctors are not perfect, and there is a reason it is called practicing medicine. A guy might get lucky and not have incontinence, or he may get it, when the prostate is removed. But odds are the incontinence will not be due to anything being botched. It's a hazard of the removal of that particular body part.

Should you proceed with the surgery, all any of us are saying is incontinence could result. in my own case when I was nullified, a potential side-effect was the possibility of never having an orgasm again. I didn't have that happen, and I only know of one case of a nullo who cannot post-surgery, but I went into the surgery knowing I might come out of the operation and never be able to stimulate myself to an orgasm again. Fortunately that didn't happen, but I gave my INFORMED consent to the surgery knowing it was a possibility.

I am not going to tell you what to do, because only you can decide for yourself what is best for you. However, going into a surgery, having all the risks explained to you as part of the pre-surgery appointment process, being informed incontinence is possible with what you're asking for, then saying it was botched because you ended up incontinent, would be an inaccurate view. You would have at that point given your informed consent knowing that outcome was likely and/or possible.

It bothers me you say if the surgeon botched the prostatectomy and it resulted in incontinenc

Losethem (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 9:58 am e. I'm not being purposely difficult when I say that.

Where I'm having difficulty is it's the implication that a surgeon performs the wanted surgery, explains the risks of which incontinence is one. Then a patient has the surgery, comes out of it upset that they're incontinent, then claims their surgery was botched. It wasn't botched, and they were informed before hand incontinence is a possibility.

This is where informed consent comes into the picture. You had said something before about it being a model, and I disagreed with the statement, again, not to be difficult. All informed consent is, is a patient giving a physician permission to perform a procedure on them as part of their medical practice. In the case of the prostatectomy, the patient would be informed incontinence is a possible side-effect, and consent to that surgery having been INFORMED of that. Hence, informed consent.

What TopManFL was saying, even with a flawless surgery, incontinence could result. That wouldn't be the doctor botching anything. Even the best surgeon could end up giving a result producing incontinence. Doctors are not perfect, and there is a reason it is called practicing medicine. A guy might get lucky and not have incontinence, or he may get it, when the prostate is removed. But odds are the incontinence will not be due to anything being botched. It's a hazard of the removal of that particular body part.

Should you proceed with the surgery, all any of us are saying is incontinence could result. in my own case when I was nullified, a potential side-effect was the possibility of never having an orgasm again. I didn't have that happen, and I only know of one case of a nullo who cannot post-surgery, but I went into the surgery knowing I might come out of the operation and never be able to stimulate myself to an orgasm again. Fortunately that didn't happen, but I gave my INFORMED consent to the surgery knowing it was a possibility.

[

quote="Dekeldoh (imported)" time=1535233560]
It would indeed be a tragic story if a 22-year-old male had to have his prostate removed, and his surgeon botched his surgery leaving him completely incontinent, and he only lived to be 95, and he never found a remedy for his urinary incontinence even 73 years into the future. Fortunately, I am not a male, nor will I be having a prostatectomy when I am 22 years old.
[/quote]


I will openly admit that I was exaggerating with that sentence. I was just being snarky because TopManFL's 95 year analogy and male pronouns made me feel defensive. But I tend to read too much into things. I'm grateful for the concern and additional information. Anyway, yes, anyone who takes that sentence seriously has every right to be bothered by it. Sorry.

As for informed consent being a model, I'm starting to feel like you are being a tad difficult. I didn't finish middle school and I don't even know what defines a "business model" in X textbook; in that post I was just trying to make sense of what zeebster was saying. And I still don't understand exactly what he meant. Correcting me in that thread is one thing, but misquoting it here and implying that I had any deeper meaning behind it is giving me a headache...