Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    Not that I have had a vasectomy but some friends have, they were told
    that there is a remote possibility that a lady may become pregnant but
    the odds are very large indeed. As for making ANY woman pregnant that
    assumes that every woman can BECOME pregnant which as we know is not
    possible.
    
    When you think that many woman try to become pregnant for many months
    before being successful. Add to this the 1000000 to 1 odds of you
    making someone pregnant.
    
    I WOULD NOT WORRY 
    
    Hope this helps a bit
    
    Chas

    Thanks Chas for the reply. I nearly flipped when I heard this.
    
    Regards,
    
    Dave
    

    I would suggest, Dave, that you not _try_ to _prove_ the Doctor right
    or wrong.
    
    And if you DO, do it safely.
    
    And stay away from _my_ wife/daughter!
    
    ;^}
    tony

Note 10 discusses vasectomies and has 125 replies.  Perhaps you'll find
more information there.

I changed the title of the base note from "Have you heard??" to be more
descriptive.

And it's true - vasectomies sometimes (but rarely) "undo" themselves.

			Steve

What they won't do for ratings nowadays!

		Steve

    
    re Basenoter,
    I know of two people born after a vasectomy.  (They did test the
    husband and found that the vasecotmy has reversed itself.)
    Perhaps you could get a sperm count check every year or so?
    Better safe than Daddy!
    
    Rachael
    

    A vasectomy done live on the air ?????
    
    
    
    Only in California  :-}
    
    
    
    Paul C.

    February is ratings "sweeps" month in the media.
    
    Surely, Phil and Geraldo must have had guests participate
    in on-air vasectomies.  If not, just give them a little
    time...
    
    Shawn

>     <<< Note 562.5 by WR2FOR::COSTELLO_KE "Homey Don't Play That Game" >>>
>
>    Two weeks ago on the radio station that I listen to on the way to work,
>    the morning DJ was having a vasectomy done on the air.  They had the
>    equipment in the Doc's office and the doctor was talking both the DJ
>    and the audience listening through the hole operation.  
                                            ^^^^
    Is it just me, or did anyone else cringe at this, I assume, unintended
    typo :-)
    
    ML

Re: .11

It wasn't just you...

	Steve

    RE: .11
    
    I was trying *soooo* har...errrrrr....diligently to be nice!  (*8
    
    
    E Grace

    I was waiting for some other nit picker to pick it.
    
    ed

		Regarding vasectomies:


	Men who have vasectomies may run twice the risk of
	developing prosate cancer, which strikes one out of
	11 men and is the second leading cause of male 
	cancer deaths. (Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY)


	kits

    
    RE: .14
    
    >>I was waiting for some other nit picker to pick it.
    
    
    Oh, ed, ed, ed...tsk!  You might have phrased that juuussstt a *little*
    more concisely!  (*8
    
    E Grace
    

�	Men who have vasectomies may run twice the risk of
�	developing prosate cancer, which strikes one out of
�	11 men and is the second leading cause of male 
�	cancer deaths. (Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY)
    
    Are you saying that 1 out of 5.5 men with vasectomies gets prostrate
    cancer?  
    
    I keep hearing these little sound-bites, which are great for a quick
    scare but awfully low on content.  Does anyone have more information,
    like a reference to the study, or a "Snipping: Friend or Foe?" article
    in "Omni"? 
    
    I always figured that the REAL cause of prostate cancer (I always want
    to write that as "prostrate") is excessive sexual activity.  That way
    we can go through the same horrible fears as het women regarding
    cervical cancer and born-agains regarding eternal damnation.
    
    Ray

>              <<< Note 562.17 by STAR::RDAVIS "Untimely ripp'd" >>>

    
>    Are you saying that 1 out of 5.5 men with vasectomies gets prostrate
>    cancer?  
 

	I'M not saying....only referring to a study that was done.
   
>    scare but awfully low on content.  Does anyone have more information,
>    like a reference to the study, or a "Snipping: Friend or Foe?" article
>    in "Omni"? 
 

	Why not contact the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo
	New York..where the study was done.
   

	kits

�        <<< Note 562.18 by IAMOK::MITCHELL "from sea to shining sea" >>>

�	Why not contact the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo
�	New York..where the study was done.
    
    Seems kind of expensive and bureaucratic.  Is that how you got the
    information?
    
    Ray
    
    P.S. - I guess my personal name is a little unfortunate in the current
    context...

    
�    I always figured that the REAL cause of prostate cancer (I always want
�    to write that as "prostrate") is excessive sexual activity.

You *are* kidding, right? (I hope)

	-Kenny

� You *are* kidding, right? (I hope)
    
    Check the latest "Journal of Irreproducible Results" for more
    information.
    
    Ray

    re: cancer, etc...
    
    Gee, when my hubby had his vasectomy (14 years ago, hasen't reversed
    itself, thank goodness), we were told that men with vasectomies were
    *less* likely to develop cancer of the prostate than others, according
    to several medical studies (I wish I had the source, but it was long
    ago, and we trusted the doctors then).  If the disease were so common,
    I would think we would hear more about it, as is the case with female 
    breast cancer.  I question the numbers - even skin cancer is not so
    prevelant.
    
    -
    
    We, too, were told of the slight chance of reversal, but the risks of
    the male sterilization were so minimal compared with that of the female
    tubal ligation risks -  and *both* were orders of magnitudes greater in
    effectiveness than other forms of birth control - the decision sort of
    made itself.
    
    -m

The chances for natural reversal may depend on the procedure. Since we were
sure we didn't want any more kids, the doctor used his standard 'thorough'
procedure. Less thorough procedures may be more prone to reversal.

Somewhat graphic details follow:


First he made a single small incision through which all the work was done.
On each side he clamped the tube in such a way that he could cut out a
section about a quarter of an inch long. He then cauterized (welded) the
ends closed. Then he folded the ends back onto the tube (kinked) and put in
a retaining stitch. After doing both sides he closed me up, having taken
about 20 minutes, start to finish. If I have another child I name it
Houdini!

    
    I too think it is the procedure....mine....the double knot method.
    
    hw

    
    Just to add another kink ( no pun intended ) - has anyone heard that
    men with vasectomies have a greater chance of high blood pressure?  I'm
    not sure what one has to do with the other, but I thought I had heard
    this around 7 years ago...  now that I think about it, it was when my
    ex-husband convinced me to have the tubal instead of him having the
    vasectomy!  ;-)  
    
    Actually, though, the reason we didn't go with him having a vasectomy
    was because he had had one, had it reversed and we had 2 children... so
    we figured he'd already had enough done.  It was my turn.  
    
    Now, I'm re-married and we're both "fixed"...  so it would be almost a
    miracle for us to have more children.  
    

re: -< High blood pressure! >-

    
>Just to add another kink ( no pun intended ) - has anyone heard that
>men with vasectomies have a greater chance of high blood pressure?  I'm
>not sure what one has to do with the other, but I thought I had heard

    Sure is news  to me.  Up until about 3 years ago I had a "lower than
    normal"  BP ...   but  then,  most  everyone  who  exercise  a  lot
    (Aerobits Excercize) tend to have lower Blood Pressures (Bps).
    
    -BobE
    
    

 re: -< High blood pressure! >-

    
>Just to add another kink ( no pun intended ) - has anyone heard that
>men with vasectomies have a greater chance of high blood pressure?  I'm
>not sure what one has to do with the other, but I thought I had heard


		I had heard the same thing some years ago, although
	the particular study I heard about was done on monkeys and/or
	apes, not humans. I asked the doctor who did my vasectomy last
	year about it, and he said, "That study was all BS. They fed
	the animals a diet so high in fat and cholesterol, it was ab-
	surd." He said there was no evidence whatsoever suggesting
	any link between vasectomy and high blood pressure.



	--- Shawn Harrington

    RE: last few

    I had a vasectomy almost 15 years ago and I don't exercise to often
    (ya I know I should exercise more often) and my blood pressure is 
    probably lower than most of yours.  As for reliability, they actually 
    removed part of the tubes.  Ain't no way that's ever going to reverse.

    Joe

re. 0

I had mine 6 years ago.  It has worked.  But when I had it done I had to
sign a form.  One of the conditions on the form was that the surgeon was
not liable if the vasectomy failed.


girish    

    How many different "techniques" are there????  Ya'll have mentioned
    several - "Staple" technique, cauterizing, double knot...  Did they
    give you a choice?
    
    Do all surgeons know several techniques?  Do some specialize?
    
    I am asking because I am interested in my husband having the procedure 
    that has the best chances of being reversed.  I am still ambiguous about
    the decision to get a vasectomy, but my husband is quite adamant.
    
    thanks - 
    
    ali
    
    

    
    	My doctor only did the one way, "double knot".  He said that
    his success rate was 100%.  I guess if I wanted it done some way
    other than that, I would have had to go somewhere else.  I really
    wasn't too picky.
    
    	Hal