I would like to know if there is any medical concensus as to whether or not castration before the onset of prostate cancer would work as a prevetative. I have a family history of prostate cancer and would really like find any way of not getting it. Also, would a doctor perform a castration for purely prophylactic reasons, especially if there is a family history?

These days doctors would be less likely to perform castration for prostrate cancer prevention. However, depending on your situation, you may find one willing to do the surgery for you. Any male over fourty should have their PSA levels screened and have a physical examination on a regular basis.

The trend with doctors is to treat any elevated PSA levels with dietary changes, weight management and/or medications first before surgery is considered. Even if you were able to get castration surgery, that would not eliminate all the risks associated for developing prostrate cancer. The adrenal glands will still produce some testosterone and, depending on your sensitivityto it, you may still be at risk for the desease and end up on medications or prostrate surgery.

I did talk my urologist into castration. I did use an enlarged prostrate as one reason. Also told him I had no use for hormones. He did agree after some time to castrate me.

bobbie (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:15 pm I did talk my urologist into castration. I did use an enlarged prostrate as one reason. Also told him I had no use for hormones. He did agree after some time to castrate me.

Urologists, I saw two before surgery - both freaked, saw one after he was worse then the first two.

Its your body, you be the boss on what happens not some doctor, if you dont like what he is saying, go to another one.

Dr Kimmel in Philly is the one who castrated me and several of the others at this site.

River

drey (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:01 am I would like to know if there is any medical concensus as to whether or not castration before the onset of prostate cancer would work as a prevetative....

According to the three doctors that I have seen, both pre- and post-castration (the latest just 2 days ago), there is agreement that the probability of my getting involved with a case of prostate cancer is now essentially zero. That was part of my rationale for proceeding with removal of my second testicle.

This is an important factor for me. I do not know if prostate cancer is a genetic or heredity thing, but my dad had to have prostate surgery about 7 years before his death. His quality of life was terrible thereafter. Maybe the procedures have improved since then (his surgery would have been about 1982), but that is little consolation.

drey (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:01 am I would like to know if there is any medical concensus as to whether or not castration before the onset of prostate cancer would work as a prevetative. I have a family history of prostate cancer and would really like find any way of not getting it. Also, would a doctor perform a castration for purely prophylactic reasons, especially if there is a family history?

Yes, prostate cancer is definitely a testosterone-fueled cancer. Similarly, most breast cancers are estrogen-fueled. Castration, including chemical does eliminate growth or further growth of those cancers.

Women get double radical mastectomies as a preventative measure, so perhaps you can find a doctor that would be sympathetic to this approach.

SplitDik (imported) wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:12 am Yes, prostate cancer is definitely a testosterone-fueled cancer. Similarly, most breast cancers are estrogen-fueled. Castration, including chemical does eliminate growth or further growth of those cancers.

Women get double radical mastectomies as a preventative measure, so perhaps you can find a doctor that would be sympathetic to this approach.

That may work because they are having the body part that is prone to cancer removed. If you were trying to have your prostate removed as a precautionary measure, I'm sure you might find someone more receptive to doing the operation.

It's not like the women are trying to have their ovaries removed because they're prone to breast cancer.

BossTamsin (imported) wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:40 pm If you were trying to have your prostate removed as a precautionary measure, I'm sure you might find someone more receptive to doing the operation.

It's not like the women are trying to have their ovaries removed because they're prone to breast cancer.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a castration be a way simpler proceedure that a prostatectomy? I mean, I've never heard of anyone losing bladder control from a castration. Apparently it's about a 1 in 10 chance with prostate removal.

drey (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:51 am Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a castration be a way simpler proceedure that a prostatectomy? I mean, I've never heard of anyone losing bladder control from a castration. Apparently it's about a 1 in 10 chance with prostate removal.

I've also never heard of anyone getting osteoporosis or any of the other castration side effects from having a prostate removed, most of which you have a greater than 1 in 10 chance of winding up with.