TO WELCOME |
|
To prevent this picking, some farmers will remove a portion of the upper beak on all the chicks. This makes it difficult for them to pick on each other. It also makes it harder for them to eat. |
Which part do you disagree with -- the part that says it's laudable to try to eliminate ovarian cancer, or the part that says it's inefficient to perform surgery on millions of healthy women? I would think it would be the part that said: "The routine castration of all women who undergo hysterectomy at age 40 is laudable in its attempt to avoid ovarian cancer in the future," ("Laudable" seems to be applying to the "routine castration" phrase more closely than to the "avoid ovarian cancer" phrase.) It's not laudable! It's stupid. The routine castration of women undergoing hysterectomy is extreme. I raise chickens, just as a hobby, but I have studied some of the methods used by commercial chicken farmers. Sometimes chickens will pick at each other, and if one gets bloody all the rest pick on it until it has huge sores. It will even die unless rescued soon enough. To prevent this picking, some farmers will remove a portion of the upper beak on all the chicks. This makes it difficult for them to pick on each other. It also makes it harder for them to eat. But, if chickens aren't kept in a crowded environment, under artificial lighting and conditions, they don't pick. (I let my chickens free-range in an orchard of about 1/3 acre in size. In the fifteen years I've been doing this I've never had any chickens pick on others.) So... why not adjust the housing arrangements for the chickens instead of mutilating them? This only is a minor analogy to castrated women, but still... why mutilate 99.75 percent of the women who are undergoing hysterectomy, unnecessarily? Why not alter the situation -- study and develop better ways to diagnose ovarian cancer? Mutilating healthy chicks to prevent picking impairs them. Mutilating healthy women by removing their ovaries impairs them, and to a much greater degree. (Sorry for getting on my soapbox, but this is something that really makes me angry!) Lianne
The recent discussion of the article on female castration by P. Schwartz et al published on medscape is the focus of this rant. It was suggested by some asm posters that since the conclusion apparently favored fewer routine castrations at the time of hysterectomy this was a pro woman article, and that the authors had merely used clumsy wording. I disagree. To consider the routine castration of women "laudable" regardless of the nobility of the intent is bizarre. The authors argue for reducing the number of routine castration on the grounds that this is not an efficient procedure. Nowhere do these authors suggest that castration *injures* the woman who has been subjected to the surgery. They do not even deign to acknowledge that castration has lifelong adverse consequences for the castrate. Someone has suggested that the author's use of the word castration implies their disapproval of routinely performing oopherectomies. The body of the article makes it quite clear that these authors
"[Women who undergo vaginal hysterectomy frequently do not have their ovaries removed. This is regrettable as it is a relatively straightforward operation. Sheth has been able to show an approximately 90% success rate in removing ovaries in women who have undergone vaginal hysterectomies in India. Certainly a laparoscopic-assisted approach can be employed if one is uncomfortable in the technique of removing ovaries at hysterectomy through the vaginal approach.There is little excuse for failing to remove the ovaries in postmenopausal women at the time of elective hysterectomy (emphasis mine) I quote
Tetje
|
http://www.medscape.com/PMSI/EMJ/1997/v04.n03/emj0403.05.schw/emj0403.05.schw.html for the offending article. (Free registration is required)