Same month.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
A friend has undergone a life-saving transplant and is doing very well, back at work etc. But it hasn't been a smooth ride, she had a long post-op recovery time and she's also been admitted to hospital at least twice after having it done. Thankfully her health is much more stable now.
Without the transplant she probably wouldn't be here, so the discomfort and worry have been worth it, and a small price to pay. But based on her experience, I can't understand why anyone would opt for a transplant - that has a risk of rejection - for any reason other than to either save their life, or to overcome life-changing injuries.
I've just had a dive into rejection rates, which I'll put under a spoiler - just in case.
A quick search pulled up a wide-range of different statistics and information about rejection. Not helpful. Anyway, this is what I managed to find.
Rejection doesn't always lead to organ failure. If it's caught early the damage can sometimes be stopped and the transplant saved.
Different organs have different survival rates and the doctors don't fully know why as yet.
Lungs have the worst outcome.
Liver has one of the best outcomes - plus the cornea, which is almost zero as it lacks a blood supply.
This is from the NHS website.
"It is important to remember that your transplant team won’t recommend that you have a kidney transplant if they believe that the risk of the operation is higher than the benefits".
If someone is facing dialysis it's obvious that in most cases the risk of the transplant is worth it. Every year is a bonus, a year they wouldn't have had without the transplant - even if they don't make it to the ten year mark. And they may be one of the people who live 40, 50 years or more with their original transplant. Plus of course anti-rejection treatment is improving all the time.
While this is great news for someone facing a terrible medical problem, does the same really apply for a young person in their twenties choosing to undergo a transplant? Someone who could have another 60 or 70 years ahead of them? Can we honestly say the risk of the transplant is worth it?
Of course the activists will shout that without this surgery the person is at risk of taking their own life.However, I think most of us here would agree that the risk is not worth it and counselling would be a much better option.
One final point to consider is that the anti rejection drugs also increase the risk of infections and cancer. Once again, are the risks worth it for a transplant that is a choice?
Just to clarify - I mention a young person in their twenties because that is the age group the doctor is aiming at. My opinion remains the same if the patient was much older - the risks don't justify the potential benefit.
Rejection doesn't always lead to organ failure. If it's caught early the damage can sometimes be stopped and the transplant saved.
Different organs have different survival rates and the doctors don't fully know why as yet.
Lungs have the worst outcome.
Liver has one of the best outcomes - plus the cornea, which is almost zero as it lacks a blood supply.
This is from the NHS website.
"It is important to remember that your transplant team won’t recommend that you have a kidney transplant if they believe that the risk of the operation is higher than the benefits".
If someone is facing dialysis it's obvious that in most cases the risk of the transplant is worth it. Every year is a bonus, a year they wouldn't have had without the transplant - even if they don't make it to the ten year mark. And they may be one of the people who live 40, 50 years or more with their original transplant. Plus of course anti-rejection treatment is improving all the time.
While this is great news for someone facing a terrible medical problem, does the same really apply for a young person in their twenties choosing to undergo a transplant? Someone who could have another 60 or 70 years ahead of them? Can we honestly say the risk of the transplant is worth it?
Of course the activists will shout that without this surgery the person is at risk of taking their own life.However, I think most of us here would agree that the risk is not worth it and counselling would be a much better option.
One final point to consider is that the anti rejection drugs also increase the risk of infections and cancer. Once again, are the risks worth it for a transplant that is a choice?
Just to clarify - I mention a young person in their twenties because that is the age group the doctor is aiming at. My opinion remains the same if the patient was much older - the risks don't justify the potential benefit.
In 2006 The Guardian published an article about the world's first pen transplant which was performed on a man following an accident. It concluded:
Interesting question, Andrew George, and even more relevant today.
On Reddit I read two common themes by both TIM and TIF regarding surgery.
1) My surgeon told me to stop smoking (cigarettes and weed) so many days before surgery but I've continued. Can I still have my operation?
2) TIM - My surgeon told me to dilate 4 times a day but it's too difficult. Can I just do it 3 times? Twice? (and the replies are usually confirming that it's fine, they dilated just once a day without losing depth...)
TIF - My surgeon told me not to go shirtless in the sun / lift my arms above my head but I have done. Will I be okay?
Compliance with the surgeon's advice isn't a key feature, and those who've had the surgery will always come along to reassure the OP that they didn't follow the rules and they were just fine.
Apparently anti rejection drugs require strict compliance. No problem there then....
And of course they are already taking hormones at levels that their bodies weren't designed for.
My opinion? The doctor should be struck off if he ever attempts this. (But we know he won't be).
Surely to goodness this is just the crazy ramblings of an ego driven surgeon desperate to make a name for himself?
How would this kind of surgery even work? If the standard procedure is to use the pen skin to make a pseudo vaginal canal, what would they use instead if the entire pen is supposed to be grafted onto a woman?
Please don’t say bowel…
Anyway, the very idea is pure trans-humanist batshittery. Not to mention so unlikely to work. But I’m genuinely at the point now where if adults are willing to let surgeons experiment on them, that’s on them. If they wreck their bodies, that’s on them. If they die, that’s on them.
---
Did anyone listen to endometriosis Steph on Women’s Hour just now? It was a shitshow. Operation Let Them Speak strikes again.
Impressed with Emma Barnett, who absolutely went IN on them. Jodie Hughes, the woman who appointed Steph, spoke too, and she got very angry
Last edited:
Kim K has been named GQ's Man of the Year (that's a whole other discussion!) and the amount of people up in arms, raging that a woman has been given this accolade is enormous.
So a man can be named Woman of the Year but a woman can't be named Man of the Year?
Fair is fair...right? Oh....unless it affects men. Right.
So a man can be named Woman of the Year but a woman can't be named Man of the Year?
Fair is fair...right? Oh....unless it affects men. Right.
All the costs for non-life threatening surgery & ongoing prescriptions for the rest of their lives.A friend has undergone a life-saving transplant and is doing very well, back at work etc. But it hasn't been a smooth ride, she had a long post-op recovery time and she's also been admitted to hospital at least twice after having it done. Thankfully her health is much more stable now.
Without the transplant she probably wouldn't be here, so the discomfort and worry have been worth it, and a small price to pay. But based on her experience, I can't understand why anyone would opt for a transplant - that has a risk of rejection - for any reason other than to either save their life, or to overcome life-changing injuries.
I've just had a dive into rejection rates, which I'll put under a spoiler - just in case.
A quick search pulled up a wide-range of different statistics and information about rejection. Not helpful. Anyway, this is what I managed to find.
Rejection doesn't always lead to organ failure. If it's caught early the damage can sometimes be stopped and the transplant saved.
Different organs have different survival rates and the doctors don't fully know why as yet.
Lungs have the worst outcome.
Liver has one of the best outcomes - plus the cornea, which is almost zero as it lacks a blood supply.
This is from the NHS website.
View attachment 2571978
"It is important to remember that your transplant team won’t recommend that you have a kidney transplant if they believe that the risk of the operation is higher than the benefits".
If someone is facing dialysis it's obvious that in most cases the risk of the transplant is worth it. Every year is a bonus, a year they wouldn't have had without the transplant - even if they don't make it to the ten year mark. And they may be one of the people who live 40, 50 years or more with their original transplant. Plus of course anti-rejection treatment is improving all the time.
While this is great news for someone facing a terrible medical problem, does the same really apply for a young person in their twenties choosing to undergo a transplant? Someone who could have another 60 or 70 years ahead of them? Can we honestly say the risk of the transplant is worth it?
Of course the activists will shout that without this surgery the person is at risk of taking their own life.However, I think most of us here would agree that the risk is not worth it and counselling would be a much better option.
One final point to consider is that the anti rejection drugs also increase the risk of infections and cancer. Once again, are the risks worth it for a transplant that is a choice?
Just to clarify - I mention a young person in their twenties because that is the age group the doctor is aiming at. My opinion remains the same if the patient was much older - the risks don't justify the potential benefit.
In 2006 The Guardian published an article about the world's first pen transplant which was performed on a man following an accident. It concluded:
View attachment 2572024
Interesting question, Andrew George, and even more relevant today.
On Reddit I read two common themes by both TIM and TIF regarding surgery.
1) My surgeon told me to stop smoking (cigarettes and weed) so many days before surgery but I've continued. Can I still have my operation?
2) TIM - My surgeon told me to dilate 4 times a day but it's too difficult. Can I just do it 3 times? Twice? (and the replies are usually confirming that it's fine, they dilated just once a day without losing depth...)
TIF - My surgeon told me not to go shirtless in the sun / lift my arms above my head but I have done. Will I be okay?
Compliance with the surgeon's advice isn't a key feature, and those who've had the surgery will always come along to reassure the OP that they didn't follow the rules and they were just fine.
Apparently anti rejection drugs require strict compliance. No problem there then....
And of course they are already taking hormones at levels that their bodies weren't designed for.
My opinion? The doctor should be struck off if he ever attempts this. (But we know he won't be).
It takes on average 10 years of medical negligence and gaslighting to get a diagnosis of endometriosis and even then the treatment options are diabolical. Many women struggle to even be listened to during menopause and receive HRT. Sexual health and abortion care is a postcode lottery and not adequate. There are not enough midwives to care for pregnant women and offer full choice, breastfeeding support is woefully underfunded and mental health support for new mums is non existent.
So get to duck. We’re all ducked by the NHS in its current form but OF COURSE trans people the most
So get to duck. We’re all ducked by the NHS in its current form but OF COURSE trans people the most
God, I hate the term 'folk'.
OH MY GOD! Guys if we don’t want to wear dresses or make up maybe we’re TRANS. This reductive idea of gender is so ducked up.
The NHS isn't " failing" trans .
It's assisting people in A&E, having babies, operations to save peoples eyesight, health, cancer treatments & 101 other things- diabetes , motor neurone disease, parkinsonism , gall bladder operations, emergency accident surgery, and 1001 other things including MRI scans, X-rays , blood tests ..... referrals for dentistry, depression etc
duck off !!!!! bleeping bull . I am getting the right bleeping hole with these bleeps.
It's assisting people in A&E, having babies, operations to save peoples eyesight, health, cancer treatments & 101 other things- diabetes , motor neurone disease, parkinsonism , gall bladder operations, emergency accident surgery, and 1001 other things including MRI scans, X-rays , blood tests ..... referrals for dentistry, depression etc
duck off !!!!! bleeping bull . I am getting the right bleeping hole with these bleeps.
Which let’s face it, is what the NHS was designed for. If someone wants to have their bits chopped off for no good reason, they should be made to go private. I don’t pay NI so Dave can become Delilah !
Haha maybe it’s cos I’m Scottish but I say folk all the time!!
“Lots of folk were saying this..”
but when people say “folx” unironically I don’t get it?? Folk/folks is “gender neutral”??
don’t get me started on bleeping “latinx”
---
Also how can a waiting list possibly be “19 years” or “35 years”? That’s absolute bullIt takes on average 10 years of medical negligence and gaslighting to get a diagnosis of endometriosis and even then the treatment options are diabolical. Many women struggle to even be listened to during menopause and receive HRT. Sexual health and abortion care is a postcode lottery and not adequate. There are not enough midwives to care for pregnant women and offer full choice, breastfeeding support is woefully underfunded and mental health support for new mums is non existent.
So get to duck. We’re all ducked by the NHS in its current form but OF COURSE trans people the most
View attachment 2572952
Woman's Hour - Justice Secretary Alex Chalk on sentencing reforms - BBC Sounds
Cabinet reshuffle, endometriosis, and Minnie the Minx.
www.bbc.co.uk
Fast forward to 22:15 to hear the endometriosis segment. Both Jody and Steph come across absolutely clueless and useless, Steph can barely answer a question and Jody gets audibly upset/annoyed at having her ideology questioned.
I’d put good money on this woman having undiagnosed autism of some description. Weird child, doesn’t fit in etc. Had she been younger she probably would have been transed.
Also - I changed jobs this year and haven’t worn make up or a dress since…I must be a man right?
DM article on WH and an LBC interviewWoman's Hour - Justice Secretary Alex Chalk on sentencing reforms - BBC Sounds
Cabinet reshuffle, endometriosis, and Minnie the Minx.
Fast forward to 22:15 to hear the endometriosis segment. Both Jody and Steph come across absolutely clueless and useless, Steph can barely answer a question and Jody gets audibly upset/annoyed at having her ideology questioned.
The Mail has just covered the story:Woman's Hour - Justice Secretary Alex Chalk on sentencing reforms - BBC Sounds
Cabinet reshuffle, endometriosis, and Minnie the Minx.
Fast forward to 22:15 to hear the endometriosis segment. Both Jody and Steph come across absolutely clueless and useless, Steph can barely answer a question and Jody gets audibly upset/annoyed at having her ideology questioned.
https://www.archive.is/oldest/https...ord-woman-new-role-29-men-suffer-disease.html
lol at this quote:
“I’m happy to use the word woman, I realise the vast majority of endometriosis affects women. You’ll also know there’s 29 cases of endometriosis found in men.”
Last edited:
Would that be in their invisible uterus? Can't see her lasting as CEO when women go elsewhere.
ETA I definitely meant him
Last edited:
This is a Labour MP commenting on the WH interviewWoman's Hour - Justice Secretary Alex Chalk on sentencing reforms - BBC Sounds
Cabinet reshuffle, endometriosis, and Minnie the Minx.
Fast forward to 22:15 to hear the endometriosis segment. Both Jody and Steph come across absolutely clueless and useless, Steph can barely answer a question and Jody gets audibly upset/annoyed at having her ideology questioned.
What a car crash. He must be cheap is all I can say. He is a TRA, AGP, all round creep and nothing more.Woman's Hour - Justice Secretary Alex Chalk on sentencing reforms - BBC Sounds
Cabinet reshuffle, endometriosis, and Minnie the Minx.
Fast forward to 22:15 to hear the endometriosis segment. Both Jody and Steph come across absolutely clueless and useless, Steph can barely answer a question and Jody gets audibly upset/annoyed at having her ideology questioned.
I’ve yet to listen to WH today but I’m DELIGHTED to hear that Emma went in on them. Is the word you’re looking for, woman? YAAAS EMMA!! She has not been much of an advocate for GC issues but with this it’s pretty personal for her, seeing as she has crippling endo herself. Be interesting hearing how she reacts to being told 29 men have it 
- Status