4 ms·

Like what? (Has higher regret rates)

kelseyfrog 4y ago
The first one that popped up is breast reconstruction after mastectomy, 47% of the sample at at least some regret[1]. Tubal ligation regret maxes at 20.3%[2]. While tubal ligation regret deminishes as age at the time of the procedure increases, my point is that it is still well below that of breast reconstruction. People seem to have no worries about reconstruction regret and large worries over people's sterilization regret. The paradox is hypocritical. There must be another factor at play. Prostate surgery has comparable regret rates(1 in 5)[3] to sterilization. Again, society seems to be perfectly ok with letting folks make decisions about prostate surgeries. Female sterilization in particular seems to be a lightning rod for public discourse. 1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14768320601124899 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1476832060112489... 2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10362150/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10362150/ 3. https://archive.nytimes.com/well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/regrets-after-prostate-surgery/ https://archive.nytimes.com/well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/2...
- oneoff786 4y ago
  Breast reconstruction is reversible, minus some possible loss of nerves from the original tissue source.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Why did you not address prostate surgery and do you have reversal rates on breast reconstruction surgery?
    - oneoff786 4y ago
      I don’t know much about prostate surgery. I presume it’s largely for people who have cancer. All I really know is that prostate cancer is very common among older men and is typically non lethal and probably should be done less? They should probably communicate the effects of prostate removal more than they do. Unnecessary surgeries done on underinformed patients is a different but serious problem. The reversal rates are irrelevant. The fact is that it can be reversed whereas sterilization cannot, and frankly has much larger consequences than some body image issues. We don’t have a lot of studies on regret rates for young childless women because few young childless women get sterilized.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        This poses a catch-22: young women are denied the care they request because there is not enough data on the care they request. Surely, the nature of the circular logic must confound you as well. Functionally it's the same as simply denying care. Is it your understanding that tubal ligation cannot, under any circumstance, be reversed? If not so, then reversal rates are in fact important to this discussion.
        oneoff786 4y ago
        Reversal is fair. I assume it’s permanent. > This poses a catch-22: young women are denied the care they request because there is not enough data on the care they request. Surely, the nature of the circular logic must confound you as well. Functionally it's the same as simply denying care. Lack of evidence of no harm is a hard sell against priors that assume harm.
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
        It feels too close to being asked to prove a negative. Why not simply have an uninformative prior rather than a strong harm prior? Based on the discussion we've hard so far, it sounds like your prior is conditioned in some way, and to find the means by which it is is precisely why I'm digging[1]. 1. at this point probably pestering

The first one that popped up is breast reconstruction after mastectomy, 47% of the sample at at least some regret[1]. Tubal ligation regret maxes at 20.3%[2]. While tubal ligation regret deminishes as age at the time of the procedure increases, my point is that it is still well below that of breast reconstruction. People seem to have no worries about reconstruction regret and large worries over people's sterilization regret. The paradox is hypocritical. There must be another factor at play. Prostate surgery has comparable regret rates(1 in 5)[3] to sterilization. Again, society seems to be perfectly ok with letting folks make decisions about prostate surgeries. Female sterilization in particular seems to be a lightning rod for public discourse. 1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14768320601124899 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1476832060112489... 2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10362150/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10362150/ 3. https://archive.nytimes.com/well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/regrets-after-prostate-surgery/ https://archive.nytimes.com/well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/2...

oneoff786 4y ago
Breast reconstruction is reversible, minus some possible loss of nerves from the original tissue source.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Why did you not address prostate surgery and do you have reversal rates on breast reconstruction surgery?
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    I don’t know much about prostate surgery. I presume it’s largely for people who have cancer. All I really know is that prostate cancer is very common among older men and is typically non lethal and probably should be done less? They should probably communicate the effects of prostate removal more than they do. Unnecessary surgeries done on underinformed patients is a different but serious problem. The reversal rates are irrelevant. The fact is that it can be reversed whereas sterilization cannot, and frankly has much larger consequences than some body image issues. We don’t have a lot of studies on regret rates for young childless women because few young childless women get sterilized.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      This poses a catch-22: young women are denied the care they request because there is not enough data on the care they request. Surely, the nature of the circular logic must confound you as well. Functionally it's the same as simply denying care. Is it your understanding that tubal ligation cannot, under any circumstance, be reversed? If not so, then reversal rates are in fact important to this discussion.
      - oneoff786 4y ago
        Reversal is fair. I assume it’s permanent. > This poses a catch-22: young women are denied the care they request because there is not enough data on the care they request. Surely, the nature of the circular logic must confound you as well. Functionally it's the same as simply denying care. Lack of evidence of no harm is a hard sell against priors that assume harm.
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
        It feels too close to being asked to prove a negative. Why not simply have an uninformative prior rather than a strong harm prior? Based on the discussion we've hard so far, it sounds like your prior is conditioned in some way, and to find the means by which it is is precisely why I'm digging[1]. 1. at this point probably pestering