3 ms·

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 olde

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

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