Bioethics Discussion Blog: Use vs Abuse of Hysterectomy: Section 2





Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Use vs Abuse of Hysterectomy: Section 2

In Section 2 of this subject we will continue with the discussion of the role of the hysterectomy in the practice of medicine and whether it is a necessary or unnecessary procedure and whether their is limited or biased information being presented to patients as part of the patient consent process. For those of you who are new to this blog thread, you may want to go to the original thread "Use vs Abuse of Hysterectomy: Hysteria vs Realism". DO NOT WRITE FURTHER COMMENTS ON THAT ORIGINAL THREAD. WRITE YOUR COMMENTS HERE. ..Maurice.

ADDENDUM 3-11-2009: I think the following Essay is of value for patients to take into consideration factors that lead to an unprofessional doctor and subsequent patient anger and what doctors ought to consider.

The newsletter of the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners
Fall 2004 Volume 2, No.1

On the Sagging of Medical Professionalism
by Herbert L. Fred, MD, MACP

For the past two decades, medicine has been a profession in retreat,plagued by bureaucracy,by loss of autonomy,by diminished prestige,and by deep personal dissatisfaction.' These ills would be bad enough by themselves.But another malady confronts us-the sagging of our professionalism.

Medical professionalism defies precise definition. Fundamentally, however, it boils down to service in the patient's best interest. Among its central elements are (1) commitment to excellence; (2) altruism, with service before self-interest; (3) avoidance of harm; (4)trustworthiness; (5) pursuit of truth based on scientific and humanistic criteria; (6) close cooperation with others in the health care field; and (7) humility.2

In this essay, I address our sagging professionalism and offer my thoughts on its clinical manifestations, consequences, causes, and cures.

Clinical Manifestations and Consequences

To me, the most common, and yet most subtle expression of betrayed professionalism is
serving ourselves before serving our patients. By doing so, we sacrifice the very core of doctoring humanism. And as a result, the patient-physician bond becomes weakened-or never even forms. Additional manifestations include abuse of power, arrogance, lack of conscientiousness, and conflicts of interest.3
Certain other types of behavior deserve special attention because they are sometimes
interpretable as being dishonest.4 Failure to take charge is a common example. In such cases, the attending physician shirks his or her responsibility, deferring to an army of consultants, each managing a part of the body with no one managing the whole. This buck-passing5 frequently leads to a host of ill-advised activities-more consultations,inappropriate testing, undocumented diagnoses, over-prescribing of medications, uncalled-for procedures, needlessly prolonged hospitalizations, and unnecessary office visits.The consultants in these cases commonly shirk their responsibility as well. Although ideally positioned to halt this medical merry-go-round, they ride it instead. Moreover,those with a "gimmick" use it, even when they know it isn't indicated. And let us not forget the fraudulent reimbursement claims to Medicaid and Medicare or those physicians who, attracted by remuneration and perhaps by a desire for public recognition, serve as expert witnesses even though they clearly are not qualified for the role.
Finally, most physicians simply remain silent when they know or suspect a colleague to be emotionally disturbed, a substance abuser, or just plain incompetent. This reluctance to get involved is particularly deplorable when they know or suspect that an associate is cheating or lying.


Clearly, numerous factors contribute to our sagging professionalism. Heading the list in my opinion is a change in society's overall priorities and values. Old-fashioned hard work, devotion to duty, and pursuit of excellence have taken a back seat to an emphasis on limited work hours and quests for financial and other types of personal gains. As a result, people at all levels-including many physicians-are satisfied with mediocrity. In fact, mediocrity has become the standard. Given this environment, no wonder our professionalism sags.
External forces largely beyond our control also playa role. Examples are the myriad
constraints imposed by insurance companies, the incessant pressures resulting from
federally mandated regulations, the glut of "for-profit-not-for-patient" hospital administrators,the lawsuits lurking around every corner, and the reams of paperwork
required. Attending to these various demands cuts deeply into the time we could
otherwise spend attending to our patients. And complicating the picture are human
frailties; especially ignorance, greed, fear of being wrong, and the need for


Can we remedy our sagging professionalism? Only-Insofar as we are wiflfrigto be role
models of integrity and honesty for each other. Only if we show commitment,
compassion, competence, candor, and common sense. Only if we understand and
believe that medicine is a calling, not a business. Only if we strive diligently to restore,preserve, and promote the human element in medicine. Only if we look at, listen to, and talk with our patients, working as hard and as long as it takes to ensure their welfare. Only if we always put our patients first.

Final Thought

I leave the reader with a quotation from Bela Schick (1877-1967), renowned
Hungarian pediatrician and bacteriologist: First, the patient, second the patient, third the patient, fourth the patient, fifth the patient,
and then maybe comes science. We first do everything for the patient 6

Not only do his words capture the essence of this essay, but they serve to remind us
of the ruling principle of our profession.

1) luger, A. Dissatisfaction with medical practice. New Engl J Med 2004; 350:69-75.
2) Bryan CS, Brett AS, Saunders DE Jr, Khushf G, Fulton, GB. Professionalism. In:
Medical Ethics and Professionalism: A Synopsis for Students and Residents. Center for
Bioethics and Medical Humanities. University of South Carolina; 2004: 13.
3) ibid, p. 14.
4) Fred HL, Robie P. Dishonesty in medicine. South MedJ 1984; 77:1221-22.
5) Fred, HL. Passing the buck. South MedJ 1982; 75:1164-65.
6) Strauss MB. Familiar Medical Quotations. Boston, Mass: Little, Brown and
Company; 1968:374.

Dr. Fred is a Professor, Department of Internal Medicine The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. He received the American College of Physicians
Distinguished Teacher Award for 2004. The Board thanks Dr. Fred for providing this essay.

Graphic: My ArtRage creation of a hysterectomy forcep as the focus of the current discussion question.


At Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:15:00 AM, Blogger FridaWrites said...

I have had menstrual problems for a long time (occasionally I have periods every two weeks that are long and heavy), bleeding that sometimes results in anemia, and so forth. I soak through clothing and find it nearly impossible to get out on my heaviest day or two because no matter how much I wear I'm going to leak. And yet I still haven't done hysterectomy and don't want to, even though my primary care physician has advised it and my gynecologist has recommended at least ablation. My PCP can't understand it, but I feel kind of emotionally attached to my uterus--it's much of what makes me female.

But I am young--and I don't want unnecessary surgeries with a long recovery (versus a day and a half of suffering per month). Perhaps I'll have the ablation at some point, but that just seems to be a slippery slope to hysterectomy. And truly, I don't need the further bone loss and other problems that come with hysterectomy (or the possible cancers that come with HRT). It's just something I try to live with.

At the age of 20 I read a lot about women's health and unneccessary medical interventions (hysterectomies, interventions that cause harm during birth, etc.). It really influenced my thinking.

At Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:25:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One in three women in the U.S.A, 22million women alive today, did not become de-sexed by being told the truth. The women are being lied to medically and the numbers of de-sexed women prove it.

At Friday, January 30, 2009 4:18:00 PM, Blogger FridaWrites said...

Mattie, it's kind of a replay of the HRT issue, isn't it? The statistics showed it caused cancer but people said, "no, no...that's skewed or so small as to be irrelevant." Same with childbirth interventions that lead to worse maternal/neonate outcomes.

At Saturday, January 31, 2009 10:43:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Frida, exactly. The studies also showed HRT (synthetic estrogen) to cause increased heart attacks, strokes and blood clots, but they continue to prescribe it. Of course, now the status quo is to take the least amount for the shortest time, but it does not change the fact that it's dangerous to take. There's a lot of women taking Premarin (horse pee) after they have been hysterectomized and castrated and they have no idea how harmful it is. While they could read the prescription insert, most people don't and just trust that their doctor wouldn't prescribe it if it was harmful.

I'm glad you have avoided not becoming another victim of unnecessary hysterectomy. It's revolting that a doctor would suggest a hysterectomy to a 20 year old woman, but it happens every day. You may find help by going to a holistic/naturopath type doctor.

At Monday, February 02, 2009 12:59:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the female reproductive sex organs were visible, and everyone could see the carnage done to 1/3 of the female population in the U.S., gynecologists would not be getting away with this. Btw, Dr. Mo, nice art work, especially the part with the circle with the line through it.

At Monday, February 02, 2009 6:15:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Frida,
I see that the treatments and "care" tactics of the gynecological industry lead to their goal of sex organ amputation/hysterectomy.
Frida are you wheel chair bound? If I have read your blog incorrectly and misunderstand please excuse me. It sounds logical that a gynecologist would recommend sex organ amputation with it's long list of consequences to someone in a wheelchair.

At Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:20:00 PM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

Anyone here in favor of uterine fibroid embolization in place of hysterectomy for fibroids? ..Maurice.

At Friday, February 13, 2009 7:46:00 PM, Blogger FridaWrites said...

Sorry, Mattie, I missed your comment before and you may not see this one. I must use a mobility scooter a lot, and hysterectomy would indeed increase osteoporosis. Things are indeed bad in this regard, but birth control pills would increase the risk of blood clots, among other things--bad idea considering my inactivity.

I had not heard of fibroid embolization--I should read about it. I'm more likely to be in the adenomyosis or endometriosis category, or it could simply be a collagen issue for me (connective tissue problems mean longer healing).

So often there is just no easy answer. Ablation might not be so bad but I'm averse to more procedures--we'll see.

At Friday, February 13, 2009 9:23:00 PM, Blogger HERS Foundation said...

The HERS Foundation has counseled hundreds of women who reported serious, permanent problems after uterine artery embolization (UAE, also called UFE). Among the most common problems women are moderate to severe leg, foot, and groin pain. A significant number of women have permanent difficulty walking, and some are unable to stand and have remained unable to get out of bed for months or years. Women with necrosis (death of the tissue) of the labia, clitoris, vagina, bowel, bladder and kidney describe it as excruciatingly painful, and there is no remedy. The embolic material that is used to block the blood supply cannot be removed, so there is no remedy for the complications caused by UAE.

There have been several deaths, most often caused by infection, or migration of the embolic material to the lungs, which results in death from suffocation.

The following medical journal citations report some of the serious complications and adverse effects of UAE (also called UFE). Some of the articles note a conflict of interest on the part of the authors of the study as well as financial support from device manufacturers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, embolic material manufacturers including polyvinyl alcohol particles (PVA) and Microspheres, and the Society Of Interventional Radiologists. Note: While many do, not all medical journals have a policy that requires disclosure of financial conflict of interest.

1. Fibroid Embolisation: A Technique Not Without Significant Complications
Vashisht, J.W.W. Studd, A.H. Carey, J. McCall, P.R. Burn, J.C. Healy and J.R. Smith

British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
September 2000; 107: p.1166-1170

2. Fatal Sepsis after Uterine Artery Embolization with Microspheres
Sjoerd de Blok, MD, PhD, Cees de Vries, MD, Helma M. Prinssen, MD, Hans L.G. Blaauwgeers, MD and Lorine B. Jorna-Meijer, MD
Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
Vol. 14 No. 6 June 2003: p.779-783

3. Fatal Septicaemia after Fibroid Embolisation
Arvind Vashisht, John Studd, Adam Carey, Paul Bum
The Lancet
July 24, 1999; 354 (9175): p.307-308

4. Pelvic Sepsis Complicating Embolization of a Uterine Fibroid
Stephen Robson, Kay Wilson, David Munday and Ruben Sebben
The Austrailan and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
1999; 39: 4: p. 516-7

5.Buttock Necrosis After Uterine Artery Embolization
Danielle M. Dietz, MD, Kurt R. Stahlfeld, MD, Surendra K. Bansal, MD, and Wayne A. Christopherson, MD
Obstetrics & Gynecology
November 2004; Vol. 104, No. 5, Part 2: p.1159-1161

6. Uterine Necrosis after Uterine Artery Embolization for Leiomyoma
Claire D. Godfrey, MD and Edward A. Zbella, MD
Obstetrics and Gynecology
November 2001; 98(5 Part 2): p.950-952

7. Uterine Necrosis After Arterial Embolization for Postpartum Hemorrhage
J.P. Cottier, MD, A. Fignon, MD, F. Tranquart, MD, PhD, and D. Herbreteau, MD
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Vol. 100 No. 5, Part 2, November 2002: p.1074-7

8. Labial Necrosis After Uterine Artery Embolization for Leiomyomata
Thomas J. Yeagley, Jay Goldberg, Thomas A. Klein, and Joseph Bonn
Obstetrics and Gynecology
2002; 100:881-2

9. Massive vault necrosis with bladder fistula after uterine artery embolisation
Amr H. El-Shalakany, Mohammad H. Nasr El-Din, Gamal A. Wafa, Mohammad E. Azzam, Ahmad El-Dorry
British Journal of Gynecology
February 2003, Vol. 110 pp. 215-216

10. Reversal of Flow in the Ovarian Artery during Uterine Artery Embolization
Kristen A. Wolanske, MD et al
Journal of Vascular & Interventional Radiology
June 2003; 14:785787

11. Ischemic Uterine Rupture and Hysterectomy 3 Months after Uterine Artery Embolization
Abraham R. Shashoua, M.D., Nelson H. Stringer, M.D., Julie B. Pearlman, M.D., Behnaz Behmaram, M.D.
The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists
May 2002; 9(2): p.217-220

12. Massive Vaginal Hemorrhage after Uterine Fibroid Embolization
Robert K. Kerlan Jr, James O. Coffey, Marilyn S. Milkman, Jeanne M. LaBerge, Mark W. Wilson, Kristen A. Cea Wolanske, and Roy L. Gordon
Journal of Vascular & Interventional Radiology
2003; 14:1465-1467

13. Uterine Artery Embolization in the Treatment of Symptomatic Uterine Fibroid Tumors (EMMY Trial): Periprocedural Results and Complications
Nicole A. Volkers, MD et al
Journal of Vascular Interventional Radiology
March 2006; 17:471-480

14. Sexual Dysfunction after Uterine Artery Embolization
A.C. Lai, S.C. Goodwin, S.M. Bonilla, A.P. Lai, T. Yegul, S. Vott, and M. DeLeon
Journal of Vascular & Interventional Radiology
June 2000; 11(6): p.755-8

15. Uterine Fistula Induced by Hysteroscopic Resection of an Embolized Migrated Fibroid: A Rare Complication after Embolization of Uterine Fibroids
Pierandrea De Iaco, M.D., Rita Golfieri, M.D., Tullio Ghi, M.D., Giuseppe Muzzupapa, M.D., Michela Ceccarini, M.D., and Luciano Bovicelli, M.D.
Fertility and Sterility
April 2001; 75(4): p.818-820

15. Vesicouterine fistula after uterine artery embolization: A case report
Carmen J. Sultana, MD, Jay Goldnerg, MD, Laura Aizenman, MD, and Joanna K. Chon, MD
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
2002; 187(6): p.1726-7

16. The Positive Effect of Targeted Marketing on an Existing Uterine Fibroid Embolization Practice
Howard B. Chrisman, MD, MBA, Pat Auveek Basu, MD, MBA, and Reed A. Omary, MD

Journal of Vascular Interventional Radiology
March 2006; 17:577-581

17. Ovarian Reserve after Uterine Artery Embolization for Leiomyomata
Togas Tulandi, MD, Aref Sammour, MD, David Valenti, MD, Timothy J. Child, MD, Laurent Seti, MD, and Seang Lin Tan, MD
Fertility and Sterility
July 2002; 78(1): p.197-198

18. Ovarian Artery Supply of Uterine Fibroids as a Cause of Treatment Failure after Uterine Artery Embolization: A Case Report
Boris Nikolic, MD, James B. Spies, MD, Suhny Abbara, MD, and Scott C. Goodwin, MD
Journal of Vascular & Interventional Radiology
October 1999; 10(9): p.1167-1170

19. Ovarian Failure after Uterine Artery Embolization for Treatment of Myomas
N.H. Stringer, T. Grant, J. Park, and L. Oldham
Journal American Association of Gynecologist Laparoscopists
August 2000; 7(3): p.395-400

20. Embolic Microspheres Within Ovarian Arterial Vasculature After Uterine artery Embolization
John F. Payne, MD, Stanley J. Robboy, MD, and A. F. Haney, MD
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Vol. 100, No. 5, Part 1 November 2002: p.883-6

21. The Impact of Uterine Fibroid Embolization on Resumption of Menses and Ovarian Function
Howard B. Chrisman, MD, Mark B. Saker, MD, Robert K. Ryu, MD, Albert A. Nemcek, Jr., MD, Melvin V. Gerbie, MD, Magdy P. Milad, MD, Steven J. Smith, MD, Luke E. Sewall, MD, Reed A. Omary, MD, MS, and Robert L. Vogelzang, MD
Journal of Vascular & Interventional Radiology
June 2000; 11(6): p.699-703

22. The Vascular Impact of Uterine Artery Embolization: Prospective Sonographic Assessment of Ovarian Arterial Circulation
Robert K. Ryu, MD, Howard B. Chrisman, MD, Reed A. Omary, MD, MS, Simka Miljkovic, RDMS, Albert A. Nemcek, Jr, MD, Mark B. Saker, MD, Scott Resnick, MD, James Carr, MD, and Robert L. Vogelzang, MD
Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
September 2001; 12(9): p.1071-1074

23. Ovarian Function after Uterine Artery Embolization for Leiomyomata: Assessment with Use of Serum Follicle Stimulation Hormone Assay
James B. Spies, MD, Antoinette R. Roth, BS, Sheila M. Gonsalves, RN, MA, and Kerry M. Murphy-Skrzyniarz, RN, MS
Journal of Vascular & Interventional Radiology
April 2001; 12(4): p.437-442

24. The Future Interventional Radiologist: Clinician or Hired Gun?
Mark O. Baerlocher, BSc, and Murray R. Asch, MD, FRCPC
Journal of Vascular & Interventional Radiology
December 2004; 15:1385-1390

25. Transarterial Embolization of the Uterine Arteries: Patient Reactions and Effects on Uterine Vasculature
Adel Aziz, Oswald M. Petrucco, Satoru Makinoda, Gunnar Wikholm, Paul Svendsen, Mats Brannstrom and Per Olof Janson
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica of Scandinavica
March 1998; 77(3): p.334-340

26. Pathologic Features of Uteri and Leiomyomas Following Uterine Artery Embolization for Leiomyomas
Terence J. Colgan, Gaylene Pron, Eva J. M. Mocarski, John D. Bennett, Murray R. Asch, and Andrew Common
The American Journal of Surgical Pathology
27(2); 167-177, 2003

27. Patient Radiation Dose Associated With Uterine Artery Embolization
B. Nikolic, J.B. Spies, M.J. Lundsten, and S. Abbara
Jan. 2000, 214(1): p.121-125

28. Influence of Radiographic Technique and Equipment on Absorbed Ovarian Dose Associated with Uterine Artery Embolization
B. Nikolic, S. Abbara, E. Levy, I. Imaoka, M.L. Lundsten, R.C. Jha, and J.B. Spies
Journal of Vascular & Interventional Radiology
October 2000; 11(9): p.1173-1178

29. Fibroid-related Menorrhagia: Treatment with Superselective Embolization of the Uterine Arteries and Midterm Follow-up
Jean-Pierre Pelage, MD, Olivier Le Dref, MD, Philippe Soya, MD, PhD, Moored Kardache, MD, Henri Dahan, MD, Martine Abitbol, MD, Jean-Jacques Merland, MD, Jacques-Henri Ravina, MD, and Roland Rymer, MD
May 2000; 215: p.428-431

30. Persistent vaginal discharge after uterine artery embolization for fibroid tumors: Cause of the condition, magnetic resonance imaging appearance, and surgical treatment
Woodruff J. Walker, FRCR, Tyrone T. Carpenter, MRCOG, Andrew S. H. Kent, MD
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
2004; 190: p.1230-3

31. Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes of Myomectomy and Uterine Artery Embolization
Michael S. Broder, MD, Scott Goodwin, MD, Gary Chen, MD, Linda J. Tang, MD, Mary M. Costantino, MD, Michael H. Nguyen, MD, Tugce N. Yegul, MD, and Heike Erberich, MD
Obstetrics & Gynecology
November 2002; 100(5): p.864-8

32. Review of Readmissions Due to Complications from Uterine Fibroid Embolization
H. Mehta, C. Sandhu, M. Matson, A.-M. Belli
Clinical Radiology
2002; 57: p.1122-1124

33. Fibroid-related Menorrhagia: Treatment with Superselective Embolization of the Uterine Arteries and Midterm Follow-up
Jean-Pierre Pelage, MD, Olivier Le Dref, MD, Philippe Soya, MD, PhD, Moored Kardache, MD, Henri Dahan, MD, Martine Abitbol, MD, Jean-Jacques Merland, MD, Jacques-Henri Ravina, MD, and Roland Rymer, MD
May 2000; 215: p.428-431

34. Factors Affecting Early Surgical Intervention After Uterine Artery Embolization
Haya Al-Fozan and Togas Tulandi
36 CME Review Article Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey
Vol. 57, No. 12

35. An unusual clinical and histological consequence of uterine arterial embolization of a fibroid
Annabelle Burnham, Alan Crystal and E. Peter H. Torrie
Gynecological Endoscopy
2000 9, 201-203

36. Uterine Artery Embolization for Fibroids: Understanding the Technical Causes of Failure
James N Spies, MD
Journal of Vascular & Interventional Radiology
2003; 14: p.11-14

37. Uterine Artery Embolization
Ann B. DeMello, RN
AORN Journal
April 2001; 73(4): p.790-813

38. Uterine Artery Embolization: A Minimally Invasive Technique for the Treatment of Uterine Fibroids
Gordon C.H. Wong, BA, Susie J. Muir, MD, Annie P.W. Lai, MD, and Scott C. Goodwin, MD
Journal of Women's Health & Gender-Based Medicine
May 2000; 9(4): p.357-62

39. Uterine Restoration after Repeated Expulsion of Myomas after Uterine Artery Embolization
Afaf Felemban, MD, Lawrence Stein, MD, and Togas Tulandi, MD
Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists
August 2001; 8(3): p.442-444

40. Late Leiomyoma Expulsion after uterine Artery Embolization
Henri Marret, MD et al
Journal of Vascular & Interventional Radiology
December 2004; 15:1483-1485

41. Permanent amenorrhea associated with endometrial atrophy after uterine artery embolization for symptomatic uterine fibroids

42. Pregnancy after uterine artery embolization to control haemorrhage from gestational trophoblastic tumour
J. McIvor, DMRD, FRCR and E. W. Cameron, MRCP, FRCR
British Journal of Radiology
July 1996: 69(823): p.624-629

43. Pain after Uterine Artery Embolization for Leiomyomata: Can Its Severity be Predicted and Does Severity Predict Outcome?
Antoinette R. Roth, BS, James B. Spies, MD, Sheila M. Walsh, RN, MA, Bradford J. Wood, MD2, Jackeline Gomez-Jorge, MD, and Elliot B. Levy, MD
Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
September 2000; 11(8): p.1047-1052

44. Intraarterial Lidocaine for Pain Control after Uterine Artery Embolization for Leiomyomata
J. Andrew Keyoung, BA, Elliot B. Levy, MD, Antoinette R. Roth, BS, Jakeline Gomez-Jorge, MD, Thomas C. Chang, MD, and James B. Spies, MD
Journal of Vascular & Interventional Radiology
September 2001;12(9): p.1065-1069

45. Outpatient Uterine Artery Embolization for Symptomatic Uterine Fibroids: Experience in 49 Patients
Gary P. Siskin, MD, Brian F. Stainken, MD, Kyran Dowling, MD, Patricia Meo, RN, Jiyong Ahn, MD, and Eric G. Dolen, MD
Journal of Vascular & Interventional Radiology
March 2000; 11(3): p.305-311

46. Embolic Occlusion of the Blood Supply to Uterine Myomas: Report of 2 Cases
Raphael Kuhn and Peter Mitchell
Australia and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
February 1999; 39(1): p.120-122

47. Uterine Artery Embolization in the Primary Treatment of Uterine Leiomyomas: Technical Features and Prospective Follow-up with Clinical and Sonographic Examinations in 58 Patients
Laurent Brunereau, Denis Herbreteau, Sophie Gallas, Jean-Philippe Cottier, Jean-Luc Lebrun, Francois Tranquart, Florence Fauchier, Gilles Body, and Philippe Rouleau 
AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology
November 2000; 175(5): p.1267-1272

48. Uterine Artery Embolization for the Treatment of Uterine Leiomyomata Midterm Results
Scott C. Goodwin, MD, Bruce McLucas, MD, Margaret Lee, MD, Gary Chen, BS, Rita Perrella, MD, Suresh Vedantham, MD, Susie Muir, MD, Annie Lai, MD, James W. Sayre, PhD, and Mabel DeLeon, BS
Journal of Vascular & Interventional Radiology
October 1999; 10(9): p.1159-1165

49. Initial Experience with Use of Tris-acryl Gelatin Microspheres for Uterine Artery Embolization for Leiomyomata
James B. Spies, MD, James F. Benenati, MD, Robert L. Worthington-Kirsch, MD, and Jean-Pierre Pelage, MD
Journal of Vascular & Interventional Radiology
September 2001; 12(9): p.1059-1063

50. Therapeutic Failure of Uterine Fibroid Embolization Caused by Underlying Leiomyosarcoma
Andrew A. Common, MD, Eva J.M. Mocarski, MD, Arnost Kolin, MD, Gaylene Pron, PhD, and Jennifer Soucie, MSc
Journal of Vascular & Interventional Radiology
December 2001; 12(12): p.1449-1452

51. Uterine Artery Embolization in an Undiagnosed Uterine Sarcoma
Ahmed Al-Badr, MBBS, and Wylam Faught, MD, FRCSC
Obstetrics and Gynecology
May 2001; 98(5 Part 2): p.836-837

52. Squamous Metaplasia of Endometrium after Uterine Artery Embolization for Symptomatic Leiomyomata
Meera Hameed, MD, Debra S. Heller, MD, and Guy Murphy, MD
Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists
February 2002; 9(1): p.70-72

53. Uterine Fibroid Embolization: Another Paradigm Shift for Interventional Radiology ?
David M. Hovspian
Editorial, Journal of Vascular & Interventional Radiology
October 1999; 10(9): p.1145-1147

54. Outpatient Treatment of Fibroids: Skepticism Mounts Over Embolization Procedure
Betsy Bates
Ob.Gyn. News
March 1, 2001; p. 14

At Saturday, February 14, 2009 7:20:00 AM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

Mattie, I had to reject your last posting since it was virtually a commercial for a product and contained a link to a commercial resource to purchase the product. My blog is a absolutely non-commercial blog. You don't see any ads on these pages. I don't recommend any product, company or procedure including hysterectomy (the latter,since this is a decision to be made only between the patient and her physician knowing the clinical facts.) If you had written simply, "homeopathic products have been used instead of surgery or hormones", to me that would have been sufficient to make your observation.

Please don't take my comments above that I am trying to inhibit discussion of the pros and cons of hysterectomy (though as yet I haven't seen a post taking the pro view, though I may be mistaken). I am insistent, however, that, unlike other blogs, I don't want advertisements or to prescribe anything beyond ethical behavior in medicine. ..Maurice.

At Saturday, February 14, 2009 3:23:00 PM, Blogger FridaWrites said...

I've used homeopathy, Mattie, and have a kit--thank you. :)

That's quite a list of possible complications worth looking into, HERS.

At Saturday, February 14, 2009 6:59:00 PM, Blogger HERS Foundation said...

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains a database that is available to professionals and consumers. The Maude Adverse Events database is a good resource for information reported about various procedures and surgeries, including Uterine Artery Embolization (UAE, also called UFE), Da Vinci (robotic) hysterectomy, and endometrial ablation.
The FDA Maude Database website can be accessed at
Enter your search term, ie. “uterine artery embolization”. Then click on “All Years”. To the left under All Years there’s a drop down menu where you can select the number of records per page. Select 50 records per page, then hit the enter key on your keyboard. You’ll be taken to a screen with three columns. You can read the reports by clicking on the links in the column “Brand Name” to read the reports. Some surgeries are called by more than one name, such as UAE, which is also called UFE. So after reading the reports for uterine artery embolization, do a new search for “uterine fibroid embolization”. Currently the first item that comes for “uterine fibroid embolization” is the report of a death, but it is not reported in the search results for “uterine artery embolization”.

At Tuesday, February 17, 2009 11:12:00 PM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

To those who are writing here about the consequences of hysterectomy and the motivation of the physicians who perform it, how do you all feel about the issue of male infant circumcision where the opponents describe great sexual impairment as well as other long term outcomes to this procedure for which the infant was never given a chance for consent (as would have occurred later in life if given the opportunity)? Actually, the arguments of those here speaking against hysterectomy are essentially arguing similar to the males and infant circumcision: causes severe sexual impairment and other effects and because of inadequate or inaccurate information presented to the woman there is no informed consent. Right? ..Maurice.

At Wednesday, February 18, 2009 7:31:00 AM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

I failed to pose the significant question on my last comment: would those mothers here who would agree with HERS and others regarding the view of hysterectomy amply presented here, also refuse to have their newborn son circumcised? ..Maurice.

At Saturday, February 21, 2009 4:26:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know that much about circumcision, but no surgery should ever be performed without the complete informed consent of the patient. Having been hysterectomized and castrated without my consent, and without any medical basis, I've learned a hard lesson. These doctors are cutting on people, messing with their lives and keeping them in the dark so they can continue to do it. What I've found is that other than the Hers Foundation, no one cares at all about what is being done to women. No one cares that a doctor lied to me and railroaded me into the surgery room and sterilized me without my consent. All the nurses, anesthesiologists and other staff stood by and watched and said nothing. This is just wrong, and no one cares.

At Saturday, February 21, 2009 5:28:00 PM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

Jeanne, you write " No one cares that a doctor lied to me and railroaded me into the surgery room and sterilized me without my consent. All the nurses, anesthesiologists and other staff stood by and watched and said nothing." If what you write is true, the action of the doctor would represent unprofessional behavior at the least and more likely legal battery if you had a operation without your informed consent. Why just write about the event here? You should report it to the medical and legal authorities. ..Maurice.

At Saturday, February 21, 2009 10:00:00 PM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

Mattie wrote the following this evening. I have edited out the lengthy discourse on castration copied from Wikipedia. Readers who want to learn more about the history of castration can go to the Wikipedia link, I provided. ..Maurice.

Jeanne, I understand your suffering. I understand how confusing it is to try to understand how groups of paid medical physicians can stand by and watch the heinous epidemic physical assault in progress. I understand the cruelty of the attack, please do not feel alone, you are among the tens of millions of women living today in America without their sex organs removed for profit by medical deceit by the gynecological industry in 2009 A.D. The medical industry perpetrates this legal gynecological profitable crime so cunningly, knowing that most women will be too embarrassed to admit the physical and sexual damage afterward, it is way beyond embarrassing to be de-sexed. At this point in history the shamed and embarrassed women victims silence is the gynecological perpetrators only defense.

Watch the epidemic, heinous, legal gynecological crime of sex organ amputation and castration by gynecological deceit for profit be added to the list below in history. It is inevitable that the current gynecological act of terrorism perpetrated against the female population in America will be brought to light, it is only a matter of time.

From From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Castration in humans

At Monday, February 23, 2009 1:15:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Mo, it is true and I plan to go to the authorities (you mentioned) next, but as idealistic as I am, I know the cards are stacked against me. Why would the same staff who watched and allowed this to go on, now tell the truth? I've heard that the staff around these doctors stay silent to protect their jobs. That if they speak out they will be fired and blackballed. What chance does a patient have against all these medical "professionals"? To add to that, it's hard enough for a woman to get a rape charge to stick unless she's beaten to a pulp. How well are street cops going to understand complicated surgeries? There's a woman who has posted here who recently filed a complaint with the medical board because a doctor gave her a total hysterectomy because of a benign ovarian cyst after she was led into surgery based on an unconfirmed cancer scare. This is a classic case of a woman lured into surgery under false pretenses, and a gynecologist amputating all of her sex organs when no cancer was found. The medical board came back in favor of the doctor, of course. If the medical boards are going to condone this behavior, what chance would any victim have? Any reasonable thinking person can see that's wrong, and they don't even need a medical license. This is commonly done to women, and it is not being stopped by the medical boards. When I go to the police, I'll post back about the outcome.

P.S. Thanks Mattie for your support and understanding. The history of castration you posted is horrendous, but NOW they are preying on women for money. Not surprisingly, they did it to torture men, so why wouldn't it torture women the same way? We know it does, but the doctors have kept this well hidden from the general public.

At Wednesday, February 25, 2009 3:40:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I live in Australia and I am truly shocked at this blog. As far as I know hysterectomies are not routinely given for such conditions as fibroids and possible cancer here. How can one western country's hysterectomy's rate be so different to another's? It obviously has to do with insurance.
Tell me. Why don't doctors performed routine mastectomies when they find a benign lump? Is it because breasts are visible? Are (male) doctors loath to remove breasts because they like the visual appeal of them? Yet they remove ovaries and uteruses because it doesn't affect them? Do doctors really think that because ovaries and the uterus are not visible that they think that it won't affect women? The ignorance is astounding.

At Wednesday, February 25, 2009 6:53:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sex organ amputation and castration by deceit for profit is torture. I try to find the reasons torturous and cruel female gynecological sex organ amputation and castration by deceit for profit is legal in America. I read the history of castration and the heinousness of it's uses as torture concerning males in history. I find that sometimes after castration torture the males were put to death after the torture treatment was finished or the males committed suicide to spare themselves from the lifetime of torture ahead of them. In history the perpetrators in war who castrated males where gaining the castrated man's power, sociopath behavior or worse.? But for the tens of millions of women now who are castrated and de-sexed by OB/Gyn doctors, legally by deceit for profit, it appears the medical industry prefers the lengthy torture treatment as it is very profitable with the physical and psychological medical maladies it causes in women (and men).

I found this interesting news in history today.

"STRASBOURG, France (AFP) – The Council of Europe's anti-torture committee on Thursday demanded an immediate end to surgical castration for sex offenders in the Czech Republic.

In a report published following March visits to two Czech psychiatric hospitals and two Czech prisons, the committee said the practice "amounts to degrading treatment.

"Surgical castration is a mutilating, irreversible intervention and cannot be considered as a medical necessity in the context of the treatment of sex offenders," it said.

"The intervention removes a person's ability to procreate and has serious physical and mental consequences.

"Moreover, given the context in which the intervention is offered, it is questionable whether consent to the option of surgical castration will always be truly free and informed," it added, contesting the Czech authorities' position.

"As was found during the visit, a situation can easily arise whereby patients or prisoners acquiesce rather than consent, believing that it is the only available option to them to avoid indefinite confinement."

The Council of Europe had already expressed concerns over Prague's programme in 2007.

The use of surgical castration for such offenders has stirred ethical debate around the world.

Within Europe, Britain, France and Poland have moved to test chemical methods for convicted paedophiles.

Since 2000, around 300 Czech patients have undergone chemical castration, with around 50 undergoing the surgical removal of genitalia, according to Czech government statistics.

But the committee said Prague -- which has since taken the rotating presidency of the European Union -- had provided "inexact information" on the numbers.

The Council of Europe brings together 47 nations with a parliamentary assembly -- made up of legislators from the member states -- that meets four times a year to discuss topical issues and set out recommendations."

At Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:57:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was watching the show "the Drs" and there was a woman on who was told she needed a hysterectomy because her sister had had some kind of cancer ( I think uterine). However, because she had had 4 c-sections she was told that hemorrhaging was a serious risk. Surely the risks far outweighed the benefits (if any) in this situation. As a lay person I was thinking, "why does she need a hysterectomy?" even before I read this thread.

At Wednesday, February 25, 2009 4:12:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding the post about the "Doctors" show, EXACTLY. It sure doesn't take a rocket scientist to wonder why a perfectly healthy woman would be told she needs a hysterectomy just because her sister has cancer. Not only will she be at risk for hemorrhaging, but she will also be at risk for increased heart disease, osteoporosis, bladder and bowel incontinence, and many other problems. Exactly what would be the benefit? Any reasonable thinking person can figure it out, so why can't the doctors? Ching ching! If your brother has colon cancer, you don't see the "doctors" telling you that you also need to have your colon removed as a preventative measure. It's completely insane and there is absolutely no legitimate justification. I'll never understand how a person could to this to another person, it's beyond cruel.

At Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:15:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do most women lie about the consequences of being medically de-sexed and castrated by deceit for profit?
Does the medical industry bank on the females post sex organ amputation/castration embarrassment silence?
I continue to think most women don't admit the consequences because they are embarrassed and go along with the (medically impossible gynecological procedure)myth to not appear stupid or de-sexed publicly. Sex organ amputation/Castration is a death of the woman as she was, this is medically and historically clear.
What about the legally false medical information provided by the gynecological industry. Is the false medical information continuum brain washing a long standing bank deposit for the hospitals and physicians? Is it impossible to right this wrong professionally and socially, too embarrassing for the medical industry to end the myth? Or would the medical truth regarding female sex organ amputation and castration bankrupt the medical industry?
"When people are bombarded with false information by the gate keepers and power brokers of information, such as the media, people will start believing it," argues Dickerson, chair of the Department of Sociology at American University in Washington, D.C. "If we get enough false information, myths and untruths long enough, which we do, we will come to believe it because that's all we know. What we believe, though false, will become true in its consequences."

At Thursday, February 26, 2009 5:46:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Male ob/gyns perform 60% more hysterectomies than female ob/gyns.

At Friday, February 27, 2009 8:04:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was hysterectomized by a group of gynecologists half of which are female, I was insulted beyond the boundaries of inhumanity by every one of them. I was all but laughed at until the practice sent me a certified letter dismissing me as a life-long patient after they deceived me and mutilated me for profit by deceit to feed their sick mental illness and their bank accounts, they had delivered my child. One female gynecologist said "I have never heard of that before", in an other worldly voice as she told me to go to the emergency room if I felt I would commit suicide. Another woman gynecologist glared at me and said repeatedly to me "your not coping" "your not coping" as I lay writhing in agonizing out of body pain. Several days later another one of the female gynecologists examined me, as the female assistant winced at the sight of my infected and mutilated vaginal area, and said with a look of pride and superiority in her eyes "well, you're all healed up" as she patted me on the leg. I was cross eyed and shaking I was in such severe pain with the mutilation and infections gone untested in hyperthyroid storm, the woman gynecologist did no testing for infection, she was accustomed to seeing genital mutilation. This female gynecologist prescribed a vaginal gel used for geriatric females to balance the ph level in the vaginal area for elderly women who have urine leakage, there was a slight smirk on her face as she described her prescription. I was regularly menstruating when I stepped in the door of their legal torture chamber.
Several other female gynecologists at another female OB/GYN practice used the "I have never heard of that before" standard and I was all but laughed at. I could continue here for many hours describing the torture and insults but it is difficult and sickening.
Male gynecologists perform sixty percent of the legal female de-sexing by deceit for profit procedures in America. So that means female predator gynecologists de-sex almost half of the deceit for profit operations. Or is that because there are more male gynecologists practicing the art of deception and the female gynecologists step in afterward to cover for the males. Only one male gynecologist out of the area I live in told me he saw the hysterectomy damage and said, "you will need to learn to care for the damage".
Every single licensed OB/GYN Gynecologist and medical doctor practicing medicine today in America is responsible for the epidemic de-sexing of the American woman by deceit for profit. Not only are the medical doctors responsible for their silence, they are responsible for lining their pockets with the mutilated woman's bodies. This heinous epidemic will be the medical doctor of America's legacy in history until this inhuman act of degrading malicious legal physical assault is ended by law.

At Friday, February 27, 2009 8:58:00 AM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

Mattie, virtually every comment posted on these threads are loaded repeatedly with uncivil and undocumented generalized expressions such as your "they deceived me and mutilated me for profit by deceit to feed their sick mental illness and their bank accounts" or "Every single licensed OB/GYN Gynecologist and medical doctor practicing medicine today in America is responsible for the epidemic de-sexing of the American woman by deceit for profit. Not only are the medical doctors responsible for their silence, they are responsible for lining their pockets with the mutilated woman's bodies. This heinous epidemic will be the medical doctor of America's legacy in history until this inhuman act of degrading malicious legal physical assault is ended by law."

I would say that you and all the others on these threads who have written similar diatribes have certainly made their point here even though I would not consider their comments to be an ethical and civil discussion. As I already have requested previously, why don't you take these so-called criminal activities to the police, medical boards and government to act upon. Nothing is accomplished repeated writing your views without any balance of benefit vs harm. When a woman with a potentially lethal ovarian or uterine cancer comes here looking for information do you feel competent and confident enough with your data to take the responsibility to tell her to forget surgery and look for other therapies? I'm just wondering.

To me there certainly are patient beneficent uses of hysterectomy and with some of the data provided by HERS there have been documented abuses. But let's keep the commentary here civil and rational. ..Maurice.

At Friday, February 27, 2009 1:16:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Out of all of the hysterectomies performed, only 10% are for cancer. The majority of the other 90% are done because of fibroid tumors which could be removed by myomectomy. If a woman has ovarian or uterine cancer, it may very well save her life. However, when there are so many cases where there is absolutely no justification for hysterectomy or castration, it's frustrating to hear the "C" word. Does it seem logical to focus on the 10% that may be justified, while ignoring the 90% that are unjustified?

Speaking of cancer, Fran Drescher was on "The Doctors" show talking about how she was diagnosed with uterine cancer and had a radical hysterectomy. She constantly made comments about how great sex was, and even told a caller that sex was no different, that everything south of the vaginal cuff stays the same. I don't recall ever hearing her talk about how great sex was prior to her surgery, so it seems even more bizarre that she would now talk like a nymphomaniac and promote it to other women. One has to wonder how a woman with no sex organs could possibly be so horney? If she was a man saying the same thing, every one would think she was nuts. Is she totally brainwashed, glad to be alive, or just trying to protect her self image?

The gynecologist on the show then commented that when the ovaries are removed, a woman goes into surgical menopause. Surgical menopause is an oxymoron. Menopause is the time when ovarian hormones start to decrease which can last 10-15 years, but women produce ovarian hormones all their life. When the ovaries are removed (castration), the woman experiences loss of ovarian function, not menopause. The term "surgical menopause" is very misleading, yet this is the misinformation being given to women every day. Of course they are not being told that it increases their risk for heart disease, dementia, etc.

I don't think anyone wants to fix what isn't broken, but 90% is broken, and as we roll into 2009, over 650,000 hysterectomies will be performed again, and according to doctors, 50-90% are unnecessary.

At Friday, February 27, 2009 5:55:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mattie male gynecologists do not perform 60% of hysterectomies, they perform 60% MORE hysterectomies.

At Friday, February 27, 2009 8:53:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

PUB MED Central
"This study determined how gynecologists' sex, beliefs, appropriateness ratings, and practice characteristics influence hysterectomy rates in North Carolina. Gynecologists who performed hysterectomies at higher rates were further from training, practiced in areas with fewer gynecologists, and had more patients with abnormal bleeding or cancer. Male gynecologists performed 60% more hysterectomies than female gynecologists, but this may have been because they were further from their training. Appropriateness ratings were affected by gynecologists' attitudes toward surgery, recency of training, and practice case mix, and by patients' expressed desire to avoid surgery, but they did not predict hysterectomy rates. To decrease their chances of undergoing hysterectomy, patients should express their preferences and possibly seek the opinion of more recently trained gynecologists."

At Friday, February 27, 2009 9:17:00 PM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

"To decrease their chances of undergoing hysterectomy, patients should express their preferences and possibly seek the opinion of more recently trained gynecologists."

The literature source of the quotation by Anonymous is not given, nevertheless if the study is valid, then I certainly would agree this would be a reasonable approach for women concerned about hysterectomies. And not only "more recently trained" but also perhaps select a female gynecologist. ..Maurice.

At Friday, February 27, 2009 11:43:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with you Maurice re seeing a female gynecologist. I always believed that although I would chose a female gyn over a male for modesty issues, I did not believe that gender was important in the quality of care. However, after reading this statistic I believe than a male gyn does not appreciate how important a uterus is to a woman even after she has finished with reproducing. I am aware of my uterus like I am aware of my heart. It is not like, say my gallbladder, which I does not make its presence felt. I feel my uterus when I have an orgasm and when I am menstruating. I really would miss it!

At Saturday, February 28, 2009 3:11:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have blocked and copied the whole study from PubMed below (thanks LH for your research), and you can search for it by its ID number located at the bottom. This knowledge might very well help women avoid hysterectomy/castration, but the reality is that most women don't know this, nor will they ever find out. The media does not report anything like this, and although they tell people to get second and third opinions, it often doesn't make any difference in the gynecology field. I read a story online where a woman in NY who had fibroids went to 21 gynecologists and they all told her she needed a hysterectomy, and not one told her about myomectomy. This study shows that hysterectomy is not being performed for medical reasons, but it is based on the doctor's age and practice type. That is insane, but we already know that no one cares and it will just continue on.

Brummitt K, Harmanli OH, Gaughan J, Dandolu V, Chatwani AJ, Hernandez E.
Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of gynecologists' sex on their clinical opinions of hysterectomy. STUDY DESIGN: A survey presenting a case of symptomatic uterine leiomyomas was randomly mailed to the fellows of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who were asked to choose either hysterectomy or any uterus-sparing modality for the treatment of the presented case. The effects of gynecologists' sex, age, race, type and year of training, practice type, location and region on their clinical opinions were evaluated with univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Among the 500 potential respondents, 245 (49.0%) responses were complete for analysis. One hundred forty-seven (60.0%) were males, and 98 (40.0%) were females. Hysterectomy choice was not significantly influenced by the gynecologist's sex (77.6% vs. 87.1%; OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.26, 1.01). Univariate logistic regression analysis indicated that only younger age and being in an academic practice significantly decreased the hysterectomy choice among the participants. In the multivariate model, both age (OR 1.66; 95% CI 1.27, 2.19) and academic practice type (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.14, 0.94) remained independently significant. CONCLUSION: When presented with a case involving symptomatic leiomyomas, gynecologists' sex did not significantly affect their opinion for or against hysterectomy. Only age and practice type were independently significant in this decision making.

PMID: 16482772 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

At Saturday, February 28, 2009 8:09:00 AM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

For those women who are advised by their physicians the therapeutic procedure of hysterectomy and who come to these threads they, up to now, have only read about the abuse of the procedure and the dire symptoms and emotional breakdowns that follows. Well, I just want to present to those women at least one abstract of a study to show that there is another side to this debate.
It is from the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology:
BJOG. 2004; 111(10):1115-20 (ISSN: 1470-0328)titled "Hysterectomy improves quality of life and decreases psychiatric symptoms: a prospective and randomised comparison of total versus subtotal hysterectomy."
by Thakar R; Ayers S; Georgakapolou A; Clarkson P; Stanton S; Manyonda I
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Mayday Hospital, Croydon, UK.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a prospective and concurrent evaluation of changes in health status and quality of life and psychological outcome measures over one year in women randomised to total or subtotal abdominal hysterectomy. The concurrent evaluation was the impact of total versus subtotal hysterectomy on bladder, bowel and sexual function. DESIGN: Prospective, randomised, double-blind study. SETTING: A large UK Teaching Hospital (St George's Hospital, London) and a large District General Hospital (Mayday University Hospital, Croydon). METHODS. SAMPLE: Two hundred and seventy-nine women undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease were randomly allocated to total hysterectomy (n= 146) or subtotal hysterectomy (n= 133). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of life assessment using the Short-Form-36 health survey (SF-36) and psychological outcome measures using the General Health Questionnaire-28 (GHQ-28) before the operation and 6 and 12 months after. RESULTS: Quality of life and psychological symptoms were similar in the two groups at baseline. Following surgery, quality of life improved in six of the eight domains, with no significant difference between the groups, with the exception of emotions which showed a greater improvement in subtotal hysterectomy women between baseline and 12 months. When this difference was examined further by looking at change in the GHQ subscales, there were no significant differences between total and subtotal hysterectomy women in the amount of change in anxiety, depression, somatic symptoms or social dysfunction, between baseline and post-operative measurements. All women showed an improvement in psychological symptoms following both operations. CONCLUSION: Hysterectomy, whether total or subtotal, may improve quality of life and psychological outcome.

If no other visitor is entering the debate here with an opposing documentation, I felt I had to start. ..Maurice.

At Saturday, February 28, 2009 8:36:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding your study Dr. Mo, I've seen hundreds of these types of studies. Basically they conclude that it's a wonderful thing for a woman to be hysterectomized and castrated, and the woman feels so much better after her sex organs have been amputated, and sex is much better in their vaginal cuff. How believable is that? Really?

If this study was about men, and this outcome was based upon men being castrated, having their penis shortened, and their prostate removed, what would you think of the same outcome? Would it be believable?

What do you think the chances are that they informed all these women in the study that there less invasive alternatives, and that by hysterectomizing them that it increases their risk for heart attacks, and by castrating them, it increases their risk even more for heart attacks, along with dementia and osteoporosis?

At Saturday, February 28, 2009 9:38:00 AM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

Jeanne,first I want to be clear, this is not my study. I selected it randomly since it provided an opposing view to what has been written on this thread and was not hearsay but was statistically documented. Because you can't believe that "the woman feels so much better after" hysterectomy, partial vs total is not a valid argument against a statistical study. You must define where and how a research error has occurred and how it can undo the conclusion.

I believe there is another side to this story. It is based on hearsay evidence provided to me by my wife who has been a hospital registerd nurse for decades andhas dealt with patients who underwent hysterectomy in the past. When I told her the one sided views present on these threads, she was amazed since she told me she heard from these patients about the profound benefit from the former symptoms they received and didn't complain of all these side-effect presented here. So, again just based on hearsay, there must be another side to this question: use vs abuse. Perhaps, all the women who are satisfied that their physicians did the right thing by advising and performing hysterectomy do not belong to an activist organization and have no interest in coming to this blog and engaging in a debate. They are just comfortable living their own lives after hysterectomy. This is just my theory but it certainly is possible based on heresay and what I have observed here. ..Maurice.

At Saturday, February 28, 2009 11:16:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Mo,
The answer to your question to me is "yes" and attached is a link to the information I believe every woman with female cancer or not has the legal right to know about hysterectomy (sex organ amputation) and castration. As a nurse, it would benefit your wife to be educated about the female anatomy and the functions of the female organs. If your wife, as a nurse, is seeing a woman in the hospital after having a sex organ amputation/castration she has not seen the results of the operations. The results and consequences of sex organ amputation and castration happen in private within several weeks or months after the operations. The realization of the female patients loss of her sex organs responses, diminished sensation concerning nerve severing, loss of a natural vaginal discharge and loss of uterine orgasm is experienced in private by the de-sexed woman and discussed with her partner and her ob/gyn. Of course you don't see the tens of millions of women this has been done to talking about the loss of their sexual organs and the medical consequences in public. The results medically of female sex organ amputation and castration are very embarrassing for a woman.
I would think it would be embarrassing and illegal for the medical industry to not admit the medical functions of the female sex organs in the year 2009 A.D, but it isn't.

At Sunday, March 01, 2009 4:03:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maurice, I didn't mean to insinuate that it was your personal study, just that you posted it. I really was just asking, considering all the facts, does it sound believable? Or might the study come out differently if the women taking it were completely informed, while being asked the right questions?

There are many women who say they are satisfied, and many who go as far to say it was the "best thing they ever did". However, they also seem to be lacking awareness and education. For example, I know a woman who at age 32, had severe chronic pain and very heavy bleeding to the point where she was almost bleeding to death. She had tried everything she was offered to avoid a hysterectomy, but finally decided to do it because her doctors told her that it was her only option. After the surgery, the bleeding and pain stopped, and she was relieved and glad she did it and told everyone it was the best thing she ever did. Fast forward to 14 years later, I showed her the HERS female anatomy video. She told me that she agreed, that they don't tell you about all the side effects. She also said that she never connected the urinary incontinence she was having with the hysterectomy, but now realized it started right after the hysterectomy. She said that since the hysterectomy she has had to go to the urologist constantly for urinary problems. I asked her about sex and she said that it was non-existent and laughed. She's also had many other health problems and subsequent surgeries, so I asked her, was it really the best thing she ever did? She said that well no, maybe it wasn't, but at the time she couldn't keep living with the pain and bleeding. I asked her if she was offered an alternative to hysterectomy, would she have preferred that? She said, yes, in a heartbeat.

I've also talked with other women who have seemed to be happy about it, but after a few probing questions, found that they've lost their sexual feelings, and they have many health problems they never had before, but don't usually connect the two. I've not talked to one woman who was informed that it increases their risk of heart disease, osteoporosis, dementia, urinary incontinence, and all the side effects listed on the HERS website. Not one woman.

If you go to the dentist with a cavity that is very painful, and he tells you that all he can do is pull the tooth, you will get relief from the pain. You may be happy about it if you don't know that he could have saved your tooth and just fixed the cavity. I think this same analogy is true with most women and hysterectomy. They don't have a clue as to what has really been done to them, and they are constantly given misinformation by doctors and other women.

I believe that if women were educated and informed about this subject, that their answers would be quite different, and most women would never agree to the surgery.

At Sunday, March 01, 2009 6:08:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well I think that the question is use vs abuse of hysterectomy. I feel that in the USA there are too many hysterectomies and one has to ask why America has by a wide margin (in the UK it's 1 in 5), such a high number. I have no idea what the answer to this is.

I also know of many people who have said they were told they had 'cancer' before the operation to be told afterwards that everything removed 'Thank heavens' was normal. Now I'm no psychiatrist but I would guess that the person who had this done to them would be pretty miffed.

Circumcism is tied up with religion and cultural beliefs. However I think that eventually this will stop. The good thing is that the men who have had this done will never know what sex would be like if they had remained with foreskin intact. Regarding hysterectomy there is an undeniable fact that uterine orgasmic sensation (which a lot of studies ignore) will no longer happen. Just as a pregnancy will no longer happen.

It's said that prostate surgery has a deeper impact upon the sex lives of gay men than heterosexual men and it's good that gay men are vocal about this. Certainly prostates are only removed because of cancer though there is a hot debate regarding this as there is DCIS and the surgery for that.

Hysterectomy is most commonly performed for benign reasons, fibroids being the main one. Therefore hysterectomy is mostly performed on women who are pre menopausal and also more likely to be sexually active. However, quality of life issues do override the sexual. If a woman's qol is severely impacted upon then the lure of a hysterectomy to fix everything is going to be hard to dismiss. A woman should be given ALL the facts. There should be no dishonesty or holding back regarding the impact (both good and bad) this major operation has. Also no woman should have her ovaries removed 'as a precaution' unless she specifically requests it. It should be made law that to do this without consent and patient autonomy is a punishable offence. I can't think of a male equivalent to this apart from perhaps circumsision - though this is performed on baby boys and please don't ever equate women with children. A man would never be castrated to protect against testicular cancer once he had completed his family.

I think we should also ask what would happen if hysterectomy rates dropped dramatically? Would it impact on profits? This should be discussed because there may be link.

At Sunday, March 01, 2009 2:49:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Visiting this forum shows that the negative impact on a woman's sex life is very real post hysterectomy. I suspect that it is downplayed because historically women weren't really considered sexual beings with their own sexual desires. And as gynecology was a male dominated field, the effects weren't understood properly nor thought important (as long as husbands still had their wives vagina it was OK)

At Sunday, March 01, 2009 5:34:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I want to add that I have a friend in his late 60's who has been diagnosed with prostate cancer. He has been advised not to have surgery as it could make him impotent. It just shows how sexuality is a consideration for males but not females.

At Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:39:00 PM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

I was advised that a HERS blog commentary by a writer there and which was copied and posted here today by a visitor to my blog was not authorized by the original writer or HERS to be published on another blog. Therefore, I have deleted that posting and will not accept any copy material from HERS that I am aware was published on HERS website unless formally permitted by the HERS blog moderator. ..Maurice.

At Wednesday, March 04, 2009 11:03:00 AM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

I come to you for suggestions. Tomorrow, my second year medical students (3 male student and 3 female students) will be performing a complete history and complete physical exam (except for pelvic/rectal) on women patients in the gynecology ward of our county hospital. They have already examined both male and female patients in their medical education but this will be the first time they are on the gynecology ward and all have available a female patient. All patients will be asked by the student for permission to perform the history and physical and they will specifically ask permission about performing the breast exam. What the students will actually do will be determined by patient informed consent. From the visitors here, I would like to receive any suggestions about what to tell the students to make their experience and that of the patients they examine more valuable. ..Maurice.

At Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:59:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suggest you put these questions to the patients.

Have you considered and been informed of all the options that are open to you?

Are you aware of all the consequences of the operation?

I suppose you have to be delicate when asking a patient about their sexual behaviour but if they are having an operation on their reproductive and sexual organs - the uterus and ovaries are sexual organs as well - then they should be aware of the impact. The patient must be informed that the uterus is not just a 'nursery' but is useful to a woman all of her life.

At Thursday, March 05, 2009 11:45:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it would be beneficial for the students to show the patients the HERS Female Anatomy video, and they might learn something as well.

At Friday, March 06, 2009 10:37:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have been reading the pages and pages of problems regarding post hysterectomy on the hyster sister forums suggested by LH. It is truly heartbreaking. So many women wished that they never had had the hysterectomy. Women going through divorce because hysterectomies have ruined their sex lives. Page after page of women having lost their libido. Women complaining that they were not informed of the consequences of hysterectomies. Women believing that their sex would be better after hysterectomies, only to find out that other women lied to them because they didn't want to admit to problems themselves. After reading this I would only agree to a hysterectomy if it was life or death.

At Friday, March 06, 2009 10:50:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maurice, I also want to add that the study that you presented concludes that "there were no significant differences between total and subtotal hysterectomy women in the amount of change in anxiety, depression, somatic symptoms or social dysfunction, between baseline and post-operative measurements. All women showed an improvement in psychological symptoms following both operations". But where is the conclusion regarding sexual function??? It is in the study proposal. Why is it deliberately left out of the conclusion???

At Friday, March 06, 2009 11:21:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are a couple of excellent books out there on hysterectomies "The hysterectomy hoax" by Dr Stanley West" and "Misinformed consent" by Lisa Cloutier-Steele. I am surprised that there have been no class actions against gynos. I think that is something that someone needs to start. Then we'll see an end to unnecessary hysterectomies.

At Friday, March 06, 2009 11:21:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are a couple of excellent books out there on hysterectomies "The hysterectomy hoax" by Dr Stanley West" and "Misinformed consent" by Lisa Cloutier-Steele. I am surprised that there have been no class actions against gynos. I think that is something that someone needs to start. Then we'll see an end to unnecessary hysterectomies.

At Saturday, March 07, 2009 2:25:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's really sad to read the posts on HysterSisters, and all the message boards all over the internet with women asking why they can't get aroused anymore and have orgasms. They had no idea that this would happen to them. So much for "informed consent", but informed consent is not enforced in the United States, so gynecologists are free to do whatever they want to women. What can a woman do when she is unconscious under anesthesia? She's easy picking's with no ability to protect herself. It's the perfect crime.

At Sunday, March 08, 2009 1:51:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maurice are you able to access this article in full for us in bmj?
It is a study concluding that hysteretectomy rates are lower amongst female doctors and lawyers' wives.

At Sunday, March 08, 2009 3:31:00 PM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

I have no access. The link refers to a journal letter and may not contain the details of the study the conclusion of which is stated in the title. ..Maurice.

At Friday, March 13, 2009 3:06:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Lancet report on ovarian cancer screening, as outlined in the link to the Guardian below is troubling.

I quote from the article:

'There were also false alarms. In the ultrasound group, 845 women had surgery to remove their ovaries because the screening test suggested abnormalities, but only 45 of them had cancer.'

I find this unacceptable. That is too many false alarms in my opinion. Several questions jump to my mind.
Could anyone suggest why the figure is so high?

If normal organs are observed then why proceed to remove them?

Would the surgeon be unduly influenced by the findings of the scan?

Consent would be an issue obviously. So the surgeons who operated, knew consent had been given and went ahead anyway. For what intern/registrar practice?

Thoughts anyone?

At Friday, March 13, 2009 8:43:00 AM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

Here is the link to the Lancet Oncology abstract. I have no access to the full article. However, any statement implying that the 800 women who underwent surgery and had their normal ovaries removed is surely not consistent with the facts presented and any standard of practice. Yes, surgery means that the patient was opened and most likely a biopsy was taken if there was suspicion that the ovary did not appear normal but there would be no reason (unless prophylactic with informed consent, in a woman with strong genetic possibility of ovarian cancer)remove her healthy ovaries. ..Maurice.

At Friday, March 13, 2009 9:33:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for clarifying.

I hope they don't bring in more screening. I think it causes more harm than good.

At Friday, March 13, 2009 3:58:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting the Addendum at the top of this thread. It really describes in detail and accuracy what the medical field has turned into. As long as it's a business, it will never be good for anyone. Imagine if our firefighters were paid more to go to certain places to put out fires, and paid less for others. People go to a doctor or hospital to for help, they are not thinking that it's a business and their care will depend upon how much their insurance pays or what the doctor is skilled in where he can make the most money. Even though I think some doctors are criminals hiding behind their white coats, the majority are put in a horrible position to make money first, and treat patients second.

At Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:00:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe every branch of medicine would be positively affected if the biggest "best kept secret" in medical history, sex organ amputation/castration by deceit for profit, is brought "out" and ended by law.
If women are so vigorously encouraged to have their sexual organs tested from teenage years on because they are ticking time bombs, men should be encouraged by the medical industry to have their sexual organs tested from teenage years on too. Does this sound ridiculous, yes!. The incidence of cancer of the sexual organs is nearly identical in men and women. The difference is the media, the medical industry, nonexistent correct gynecological medical standards, money and sexism...."ONE LESS"..."ONE LESS"...Case in point "Gardasil": Phonetically heard as: "Guard us ill".
How is any patient in the future to trust anyone in a medical facility when medical lies as huge as hysterectomy and oophorectomy are totally disregarded by law.
The Hysterectomy/Oophorectomy Use vs. Abuse issue boils down to medical dishonesty concerning informed consent, laws, and the outdated medical oath "first do no harm".
Can a "Class Action Lawsuit" be made from the hysterectomy by deceit for profit epidemic? How is it legal for a gynecologist to ask women "if the woman wants to bear more children in the future", if the question is based on a benign condition? Could someone with legal expertise please explain this question and the question of how it is legal to misinform a female patient regarding gynecological informed consent.

At Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:13:00 PM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

Mattie, I am sure that operations which are performed without full informed consent are not only unprofessional but are open to malpractice action or more severe legal action. Those who sign consent forms should be sure that the forms are as detailed as is possible and complete. I would strongly advise that the physician writes the benefits and short and long term risks of the procedure on the consent. A taped recording of the conversation with the surgeon would be advisable. In my state of California, the law is clear:

* California Codes
o California Health and Safety Code

1690. (a) Prior to the performance of a hysterectomy, physicians
and surgeons shall obtain verbal and written informed consent. The
informed consent procedure shall ensure that at least all of the
following information is given to the patient verbally and in
(1) Advice that the individual is free to withhold or withdraw
consent to the procedure at any time before the hysterectomy without
affecting the right to future care or treatment and without loss or
withdrawal of any state or federally funded program benefits to which
the individual might be otherwise entitled.
(2) A description of the type or types of surgery and other
procedures involved in the proposed hysterectomy, and a description
of any known available and appropriate alternatives to the
hysterectomy itself.
(3) Advice that the hysterectomy procedure is considered to be
irreversible, and that infertility will result; except as provided in
subdivision (b).
(4) A description of the discomforts and risks that may accompany
or follow the performing of the procedure, including an explanation
of the type and possible effects of any anesthetic to be used.
(5) A description of the benefits or advantages that may be
expected as a result of the hysterectomy.
(6) Approximate length of hospital stay.
(7) Approximate length of time for recovery.
(8) Financial cost to the patient of the physician and surgeon's
(b) A woman shall sign a written statement prior to the
performance of the hysterectomy procedure, indicating she has read
and understood the written information provided pursuant to
subdivision (a), and that this information has been discussed with
her by her physician and surgeon, or his or her designee. The
statement shall indicate that the patient has been advised by her
physician or designee that the hysterectomy will render her
permanently sterile and incapable of having children and shall
accompany the claim, unless the patient has previously been sterile
or is postmenopausal.
(c) The informed consent procedure shall not pertain when the
hysterectomy is performed in a life-threatening emergency situation
in which the physician determines prior written informed consent is
not possible. In this case, a statement, handwritten and signed by
the physician, certifying the nature of the emergency, shall
accompany the claim.
(d) The State Department of Health Services may develop
regulations establishing verbal and written informed consent
procedures that shall be obtained prior to performance of a
hysterectomy, that indicate the medically accepted justifications for
performance of a hysterectomy, pursuant to this chapter.

1691. The failure of a physician and surgeon to inform a patient by
means of written consent, in layman's language and in a language
understood by the patient of alternative efficacious methods of
treatment which may be medically viable, when a hysterectomy is to
be performed, constitutes unprofessional conduct within the meaning
of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2000) of Division 2 of the
Business and Professions Code.

There will be no deceit if the law is followed completely. If there is deceit Section 2000 of Devision 2 of the Business and Professions Code will take effect.

Mattie, I would caution using words like "heinous" and "deceit for profit" if the physician strictly follows standards of practice which are professional rules based on empiric or local customary facts. The standards of practice for a specialty is what the doctors must follow. If they follow them and inform the patient about them, there is no deceit.

By the way, if there is any concerns about the established standards of practice for hysterectomies, the patient should discuss these with the surgeon and have the responses to these concerns specifically written down in the consent.

The fact that there are other views about the established standards of practice for the diagnosis or treatment of gynecologic conditions is the basis for the HERS foundation and others including my blog to disseminate these views. Patients too, these days should be responsible for learning, by use of the library or internet, about these alternative views to established standards of practice before they submit to surgery so that they can can communicate with their surgeon about this in an informed manner so as to help make their own personal decision.

At Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:21:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mattie, I think that there should be at least some "discussions" with lawyers about possible litigation. Hopefully doctors will get wind of this and start shaking in their shoes. Then we'll see how often they recommend hysterectomy. I'm in Australia and I cannot believe how badly women in your country get treated by the medical "profession". From the ridiculous yearly pelvic and rectal exams to pelvic exams performed under anesthetic without consent (digital rape) to hysterectomies for benign reasons. I thought American women were assertive. It's time to put our feminist boots back on.

At Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:31:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Mo,
Thank you for trying to explain why the poor standard is legal and showing me the CA laws, I am in PA. I don't know what other words to use to describe what was done to me than "heinous" and "attacked", perhaps you can make a medical terminology suggestion.
If it seems I am being redundant, excuse me, it helps me to talk about how harmed I have been and to learn as much now as I can. It also helps me to try to get this reality out to others to help them avoid a similar medical nightmare.
I believe the entire surgical attack on me was due to the non-treatment of my hyperthyroid condition along with the legal gynecological uninformed consent.
I was literally shaking down the right side of my body (tremors) in the pre-op room and was in a confused mental haze and moving slowly at this point with a visible thyroid nodule on my neck. In the pre op room it seemed like the nurse was trying to warn me and the anesthetist had a strange look on his face. I didn't feel well, to say the least and tried to stop the hysterectomy, but the anesthetist said he was going to give me something to calm me down to discuss the surgery and how I was feeling, as I had requested. The anesthetist inserted the anesthesia behind my back into the tube connected to the needle incorrectly placed into my hand. That was it, I had no rights, they attacked me and it was all legal, I didn't know what was happening to my body. I found Hers on the internet in hyperthyroid seeking information the doctors were not giving me. Hers Foundation explained what was happening to my female body. Soon after I found Hers on the internet, I went into a complete hyperthyroid storm with my body moving robotically and out of control with tremors, unquenchable thirst, extreme anxiety, confusion, suicidal thoughts, flushing up my neck (which I no longer have now) and sleeplessness. I was then put on Atenolol and Tapozole, to slow down my thyroid and heart rate, by my new family doctor, just days before the so called six week recovery time from the surgery. Hyperthyroid storm is extremely uncontrollable and extremely frightening alone and most patients don't realize they are in a hyperthyroid condition the first time it occurs. Hyperthyroidism can shrink the vaginal tissue alone and hyperthyroid storm causes some people to commit suicide or feel suicidal in extreme cases like mine with the anxiety, tremors and mental confusion it causes.
Was I a good candidate for a total hysterectomy-unilateral oophorectomy cancer surgery, for a benign 6cm fibroid tumor, no! But I was money in the bank for the lying surgeon and his crack team of attackers and it was legal, all of it.
It is criminal to me when I read the records I acquired from the hospital. A thyroid surgeon had sent a letter to my then family doctor, two and a half years before the cancer scare hysterectomy, saying she believed I was in hyperthyroid, then. The new family doctor looked at my chart, showed me the letter and said "see your levels were getting closer and closer" by looking at all of the testing I had done on my thyroid. All of those years the doctors would not give me medicine to treat the thyroid nodule and hyperthyroid condition they knew I had because I refused surgery on my thyroid. They all kept saying "your getting close".
Now, since I learn things on the internet, I find the non-treatment of thyroid conditions is also a very well known medical practice and helps to makes the hospitals filthy rich, not the patients well. Often a "hyperthyroid patient untreated" will be convinced she needs a hysterectomy.
Yes, I educate myself on the internet now about health concerns and it is frightening to learn how shoddy the health "care" in America is. I am still experiencing hyperthyroid problems and I take a homeopathic pellet that seems to shrink the nodule noticeably. The aftermath of the, hyperthyroid storm total hysterectomy-unilateral oophorectomy, is another story as it is almost three years since my female body was surgically attacked with no medical basis and without my informed consent.
I can say that it took a very long time for my body to heal from all of this and the "healed" version of my female body is quite different than my former self. This surgery has altered me to such an extreme that I am mentally and physically not the person I was before physically or mentally. This condition has been almost unbearable for me to accept and I will continue to try to help myself and help other women escape this tragedy.
My husband was diagnosed very suddenly several months ago with esophageal and stomach cancer. I have learned what real cancer is now in the worst possible way. I have become a "home schooled nurse" with caring for him and his severe cancer treatment and feeding tube. I know how real cancer doctors work to detect, find, measure and treat cancer, now.
I truly hope Hers Foundation is successful in having the laws changed to protect women and their families. I hope more discussions from attorneys, medical doctors and hysterectomized women regarding the medical damage caused by hysterectomy and oophorectomy are discussed on this blog. I also hope a class action law suit is filed in every state where women have signed uninformed gynecological consent forms.
Lara, very good comment "digital rape", I agree with you and may have more information soon on your point.

At Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:15:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Um, is anyone else as disturbed as I am with the St. Georges study Dr. Maurice wrote about describes women being randomly assigned to total or subtotal hysterectomy, rather than each woman having the more appropriate surgery to her condition? That gave me chills.

At Friday, March 27, 2009 12:33:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maurice, I think that the contract needs to have a few additions. Namely, the impact that a hysterectomy will have on a woman's libido, sexual enjoyment and mental health.

At Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:10:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I saw my pcp yesterday and I told him the statistic of 30% of American women having had hysterectomies. His jaw dropped. We are in Australia.

At Wednesday, April 01, 2009 8:31:00 AM, Anonymous Mattie said...

For over fifty years the medical industry and gynecologists have relied on a relatively inaccurate tissue test the "Pap Smear" to diagnose cervical cancer and HPV. American women have been subjected to bear their naked bodies to gynecologists and medical doctors to be tested for over a half century. Most women in the "United States Of America" will agree, they have been taught since menstruation they were ticking time bombs vaginally and "must" disrobe to avoid becoming a female organ cancer statistic. Every year women and young girls after menstruation would be subjected to this humiliating ritual awaiting the results of their future fate. Take all of your clothes off and be vaginally invaded with gloved hands and cold medical instruments or die, basically.

There is no medical reason to get naked to be tested for possible female organ cancer anymore. An accurate blood test for the detection of cervical cancer is approved in the "United States Of America". It is called the, "CSA Blood Test".

The simple blood test called the "Cervical Specific Antigen" is almost 100% reliable. The test was patented in the "United States of America" a few years ago, although the accuracy and availability of the blood test has been kept very quiet. Many believe medical doctors, gynecologists and pathologists will be reluctant to "give up" the unreliable "pap smear" test with it's lucrative follow-up industry.

The "CSA" test will end the humiliating and degrading naked tests we women have all endured through OB/Gyn's, Gynecologists, medical doctors and assistants.

Ask your primary health "care" provider for the "CSA" test. Don't disrobe in front of a gynecologist or medical doctor anymore for a cancer screening, it is medically archaic and not medically necessary.

At Thursday, April 02, 2009 6:09:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have had a couple of "abnormal" pap smear results, it seems it is quite common. However, I have never had to have any "lucrative" follow ups after these results. Here in Australia pap smears are done every two years, but if anything "abnormal" is detected then yearly. As my next pap smear was "normal" no further action has been taken. It seems that in the States if anything abnormal is detected then your doctors go into overkill. There's a big difference between abnormal and precancerous.

At Friday, April 03, 2009 5:28:00 AM, Anonymous Mattie said...

If you read the ACOG web site you will find it littered with scare tactics mentioning women's organs and abnormalities as young as adolescence. Check out the ACOG web site, under information you will find their published news section, it is incredible how this organization spends billions on media scare tactic medicine.
ACOG-American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists/Treatment for abnormal pap smear. "Treatment of cervical changes depends on the severity of the problem. For instance, LSIL may not need to be treated. A woman may just need to have a repeat Pap test. HSIL has an increased risk of progressing to cancer and may need to be treated with surgery. With some techniques, the abnormal cervical tissue is removed and sent to a lab to be studied. It may take a few days to get the results. With other techniques, such as freezing or laser, there is no sample to be tested. In rare cases, a hysterectomy is used to treat HSIL. Women who may wish to have children should discuss their treatment options with their doctor."
If it is rare to have a hysterectomy, how is it that one in three by the age of sixty in America have no uterus (sex organ).

At Thursday, July 09, 2009 8:36:00 PM, Anonymous Mattie said...

("an additional potential source for regenerative medicine")-("highly sought-after stem cells")
The news release posted below is of serious ethical concern and possibly criminal, if medically and criminally investigated properly. Are tissues, fallopian tubes, uterus' and ovaries stolen from women during unnecessary healthy female sex organ amputation-hysterectomy/oophorectomy by medical deceit being used for monetary gain within the medical industry?...hmm: Another reason women are being legally medically lied to about their female sexual organs functions for healthy female bodily function through gynecological medical deceit?
("Moreover, the use of human tissue fragments that are usually discarded in surgical procedures does not pose ethical problems," Jazedje said.")
In my opinion, it certainly does pose a serious ethical problem to discard glistening healthy uterine, ovarian and fallopian organs being surgically stolen from medically deceived women for profit by gynecological medical deceit...In my opinion it certainly does pose an ethical problem with me and should concern the American government and criminal justice system. The legal atrocity of epidemic gynecological surgical female sex organ amputation by medical deceit for profit is a national embarrassment and legalized gynecological theft by deception. The gynecologists and researchers aren't amputating their own healthy sex organs for research and monetary gain. The gynecologists and researchers are medically deceiving women and then throwing the medical deceit in the women's faces in clear public view.
"THURSDAY, June 18 (HealthDay News) -- Fallopian tubes removed from fertile women of child-bearing age during hysterectomies or other procedures might prove to be a new source of highly sought-after stem cells.

Researchers from the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil found that human fallopian tubes are rich in mesenchymal stem cells. The team isolated and grew these cells in a laboratory and differentiated them into muscle, fat, cartilage and bone cell lines without producing problems in the cell chromosomes, according to a report in the Journal of Translational Medicine.

"In addition to providing an additional potential source for regenerative medicine, these findings might contribute to reproductive science as a whole," study leader Tatiana Jazedje, of the university's Human Genome Research Center, said in a news release from the journal's publisher.

Past studies have also shown success with isolating and differentiating mesenchymal stem cells harvested from umbilical cords, dental pulp and body fat.

Together, these findings are of great interest, the researchers said. "Moreover, the use of human tissue fragments that are usually discarded in surgical procedures does not pose ethical problems," Jazedje said.

-- Kevin McKeever

SOURCE: BioMed Central, news release, June 18, 2009"

At Sunday, July 12, 2009 3:15:00 AM, Anonymous Mattie said...

Are We Hysterectomized and Castrated Women...Egg Donors? Could this be possible?
The fertility bank and donation center in the area where I live is less than 2 miles from the hospital where hysterectomy and ovary removal is thriving. The lifespan of a female ovarian egg is two days...does this give the laboratory time to incubate and prepare the ovarian egg for fertilization.?...Any experts here know about this?

Here are phrases I found in the "egg donor" fertility specialty.

1. "Generous compensation is offered to the "donors" for time and travel."

2. Donors may either be “anonymous” or they may be a donor, such as a "friend or relative". (Most women decide to undergo an egg donation process as "anonymous donors"). (The identity of the donor remains anonymous throughout the entire donor process.)...Imagine that! Most women donate their ovarian eggs anonymously.

After the donor’s eggs (anonymous or known) have matured a needle retrieves them through guidance of an ultrasound. Eggs are then fertilized in the (state of the art laboratory) and incubated for up to five days. After incubation...the eggs are transferred to the "recipient's uterus in a simple outpatient procedure". A pregnancy test is performed within 2 weeks after the transfer.

At Saturday, July 18, 2009 10:49:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Medical Ethics Discussion or Criminal matter?
This hysterectomy medical ethics discussion is a "criminal matter", not a medical ethics discussion. Where is the FBI?

At Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:34:00 PM, Anonymous Samantha said...

Lara, be careful with the Australian's as bad as the US system.
There is a great article by Laura Koutsky in Cancer Prevention Fall 2004, Issue 4 (available on line)....almost 78% of Aust women will have a colposcopy/biopsies in her screening lifetime with only a very small number having any problem at all.
The States with annual screening is a huge 95%...
Three yearly is 65% and 5 yearly 55%...
Women under 30 shouldn't be tested at all - look at the Netherlands and Finland. This group are much more likely to be harmed by testing.
Finland has the lowest rate of cervical cancer in the world and the lowest number of colposcopy/biopsies (false positives)...they offer screening from age 30 and then 5 yearly until 50, 55 or 60 (depending on previous results and risk profile).
Overscreening and screening young women is more likely to hurt you, than help you.
I've very low risk and have decided to accept the very small risk of this cancer than take the gamble with a very unreliable and unpleasant test.
Dr Angela Raffles puts the risk of this cancer in perspective.
Dr Raffles is a UK cancer screening expert...her extensive research showed 1000 women need regular smears for 35 years to save ONE woman from cervical cancer!
There is an article in the Guardian entitled, "Why I'll never have another smear test?"...It's worth a read.
I really think women need to be very careful - doctors have a conflict of interest. I would never trust a Dr to tell me the whole truth about screening. (it's never happened!)
They're paid to take the Test and paid to reach high screening targets....that's why some doctors even push testing onto women who've had complete hysterectomies for benign conditions - their only concern is to reach their target and pick up a huge cheque from the Govt. Patient health and rights come a poor second.
Doctors offering women, in this situation, cervical smears should be reported...this is highly unethical and improper conduct.
No doctor can pressure or force you - make your own decisions.
Screening has risks as well as benefits...that's why doctors need to obtain your informed consent before taking the test. YOU are the only person who can accept risk to your healthy body.
Do your reading...the truth will amaze you!

At Wednesday, July 22, 2009 12:40:00 AM, Anonymous Valerie said...

I've been trying to find information on the CSA Test.
I have a copy of the patent (easy when your husband is a patent attorney) and have found some facts on the Onconix and Cervius websites.
Does anyone know whether this blood test has been approved and is being used in the States?
It's definitely not available in Australia or the UK.
If this test is more reliable than the smear (and that wouldn't be difficult) then it's worth pursuing vigorously.
Many women find the current test unacceptable for many reasons and refuse testing. (their right)
High risk groups though often avoid testing..the victims of childhood sexual assault and other sexual assault victims and they are a large group.
If something has been invented that would help them and others, we need to start pressuring the authorities to get this Test on the market asap.
Some of these high risk women now use self-test kits.
It's incredible that we can travel to the moon, but its taken this long to find an alternative to the unreliable pap test.
It doesn't have to be perfect, far from it, just more reliable than the smear....that should be easy!
I should add, like others on this forum, I don't have testing. My decision was also closest friend is a pathologist and she doesn't have testing either...
Curiously, doctors often say its uneducated women who don't have screening. In my circle, its the reverse...they're highly educated women, not easily fooled or scared.
I've also heard of something called the Bioprobe which enables the woman to self test.
Is this available in the States?
Thanks for your help.

At Saturday, July 25, 2009 1:05:00 AM, Anonymous Rose M said...

I've never heard of the CSA test or bioprobe.
It would be good to have a choice.
Many women refuse the test because its so invasive and unreliable.
The number of hysterectomies in the States doesn't really surprise me.
I was looking at a chart someone posted elsewhere that showed US women have on average 50-55 smears over a lifetime....yet the country with the least cervical cancer and smallest number of false positives had an average number of 5-7.
Clearly, we're being tested far too often. The excessive medical intervention seems to carry over to hysterectomies.
I don't think our doctors care about our modesty or our health.
Why would you test so often that you just put more women through the anguish of an abnormal result and more invasive testing?
We're also expected to have annual gyn exams from our teens that are not recommended at all in other countries. Yet our doctors stress their importance at every opportunity. You're considered a fool if you refuse or even question the need.
I've found the comments on this site and others very helpful.
Sometimes we can't see the wood for the trees. We accept or don't stop to question what has always been the case.
I have for a long time felt uncomfortable with the level of medical intervention in our lives.
I'll certainly be more confident to make some changes in my life.
It's easier to be assertive when you have some facts to support your position.

At Friday, July 31, 2009 8:14:00 AM, Anonymous Mattie said...

Dear "American Medical Industry",
We are at your heels and will not allow the continuation of your ridiculous and damaging medical lies to continue to deceive the American public (via the internet). Sad but true "American Medical Industry" the current heinous epidemic de-sexing of the American woman by medical deceit for profit will end. How this American female de-sexing for profit epidemic ends is a matter of urgent public concern. You "American medical industry" already look like fools on the internet when one types in the words "Hysterectomy" or "Oophorectomy" into a computer. How long do you, "American Medical Industry" plan to historically embarrass yourselves publicly? Remember the internet is a file of global information and you "American Medical Industry" are propagating false gynecological medical information currently. "American Medical Industry" your propagation of false gynecological information is not a typo, your propagation of false gynecological information is endangering tens of millions of American women and their families. American Medical Industry, you are embarrassing yourselves publicly "in writing" "today" in history. This is not a matter of a woman and her husband being deceived in the privacy of a gynecologist's medical office anymore. You "American Medical Industry" are being broadcast live internationally. I implore you to stop harming and endangering women with the written "medically false gynecological information" you "American Medical Industry" are currently selling to and endangering tens of millions of American women with "today" on the internet.

At Sunday, August 02, 2009 8:47:00 PM, Anonymous Astonished Lawyer said...

You only need ONE woman to change things - one of you needs to see a lawyer.
It would be an open and shut case.
Annual gyn exams cannot be supported - look at the medical literature and practice around the world.
Making them and smears a pre-requisite for the Pill is a violation of your human rights.
Doctors MUST obtain your informed consent before taking a smear.
If you're pressured, forced, cannot give informed consent, that's coercion.
Almost all US women will have biopsies for a false positive - you ALL have an action.
Doctors cannot ignore the need to obtain informed consent, over-test exposing you to harm and then walk away from the consequences.
STOP the abuse, speak to a law firm with a history in class actions - they will be very interested to get a class action happening - this is a straight forward case...the facts are clear and the abuse and harm is so great.
You can change this abusive "medical" system very quickly.
I agree that the very high number of hysterectomies is another example of the contempt the medical "profession" displays toward US women.
Other countries have their problems, but US women face shocking and dehumanizing abuse at the hands of their "doctors" their entire lives.
I was dismayed at the "requirements" of your doctors when I studied in the States for 2 years and wanted to access the Pill.
I simply refused...because I KNEW it was all unnecessary - complete and utter nonsense - and harmful.
I made my disgust plain to see and said I'd get my health care from my own doctor. I saw how this abusive practice distressed and damaged my US friends and it broke my heart.
They all found ways to avoid US doctors, but most of you have limited options and are forced to give into their shocking demands.
It is time someone made a stand.
American women are entitled to live with dignity and bodily privacy, to access freely birth control and to live their lives without these constant distressing and harmful medical interventions.
The medicalization of your lives severely detracts from your quality of life.

At Sunday, August 02, 2009 11:06:00 PM, Anonymous Mattie said...

I was legally attacked by a gynecologist surgeon, who apparently "legally" attacked me. I contacted "many" attorneys relating the obvious gynecological surgical assault. I was told by every attorney that it was legal because the "standard of care" in gynecology protected the gynecologist surgeon. To say I was shocked, finding the surgical attack was legal, is an understatement. I was maimed physically and the pain is an understatement concerning the "out of body" "pain" the "apparently legal" gynecological surgical attack has caused me.
Please tell me more...Astonished Lawyer..., I am not quite understanding how this situation can be taken to an attorney, when the "standard of care" in gynecology in America permits the female attacks. The "medical boards" are certainly not going to stop their colleagues from performing the de-sexing of the American woman by medical deceit for profit, de-sexing women propels the medical industry.

At Sunday, August 02, 2009 11:18:00 PM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

Mattie, if you think that you have been disabled by an act of malpractice, you have the right to bring suit against the doctor. If you think that you have been criminally attacked by a doctor, you should notify the police. If you think that your doctor has behaved in a non-professional manner, you should contact the state medical board. You have all these options available. It is better for you to try to take these actions rather than moaning about your injuries on this blog. It will accomplish nothing in your attempt to bring your physician to justice with regard to your injuries. I strongly would advise discussing your concerns with a lawyer. Do it.. and then keep us informed, if you desire, about the outcomes. ..Maurice.

At Monday, August 03, 2009 6:34:00 AM, Anonymous Mattie said...

Dr. Mo,
If you can find an attorney in PA who will take my case almost 3 years post operative attack, let me know. I spoke with many attorneys and can't find one to take the case.
The police?, how? The "standard of care" in gynecology is legal.
Moaning?...Hardly! I am screaming this to get it into the public any way I can.
The medical boards?, Dr. Mo, read this:

At Monday, August 03, 2009 7:47:00 AM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

Mattie, the story with the nurses had to do with the actions of the prosecutor and not the Texas Medical Board which supported the nurses' "whistle blowing". Medical boards are not comprised solely of doctors or other healthcare professionals (certainly not in California) and their purpose is to license and encourage the public to report their concerns about specific physicians so that punitive and rehabilitative action can be taken if those concerns are validated.

Mattie, if your use of the words of "assault" and "attack" and words that you and others have used in previous postings are truly proportional to the physician's behavior and actions, then either you as an individual or certainly an established group such as HERS should have sufficient clout to take punitive action through one legal action or another against those physicians which you accuse. If a prosecutor would bring to trial a couple of nurses acting in good faith to protect the public, certainly prosecutors and boards and trial courts would do something about doctors who have assaulted or physically attacked you.

If the words you used are overstated and disproportional to the behavior and acts, find the appropriate words which can provide us and the other appropriate bodies a more realistic idea about the issues that disturb you. ..Maurice.

At Monday, August 03, 2009 9:36:00 AM, Anonymous Mattie said...

Dr. Mo,
I understand your concern regarding medical ethics and terminology. However, for me to use any other words to describe what was medically done to me would be an understatement.
I am looking into filing a complaint with the...State Board of Medicine in Pennsylvania. I will only file a complaint with the help of an attorney, if I can find one to help me file the complaint.
Thank you for your concern regarding medical ethics.
Here is the information concerning the...State Board of Medicine in Pennsylvania.
Majority of members. Jun-09
State Board of Medicine
P.O. Box 2649, Harrisburg, PA 17105-2649
6 Medical Doctors
1 Certified Nurse Practitioner/Physician
Assistant/Nurse Midwife/Acupuncturist/
Respiratory Care Practitioner
2 Public Members
1 Secretary of Health Representative
1 Commissioner

At Monday, August 10, 2009 11:13:00 AM, Anonymous Jeanne said...

It sounds so simple, that if a doctor removed a woman's sex organs by deceiving her, without any medical basis, and without her informed consent, that she could just go to the Medical Board or the police or file a lawsuit, but it's anything but simple. Nearly half the women in the United States do not have reproductive sex organs at the hands of doctors. Really, no one should need to say any more than that for law enforcement to start investigating, but instead, it just continues while everyone turns a deaf ear. Doctors are held in high esteem, much like Priests were before the late 1990's. There was a time when a child would go to the police accusing a Priest of rape, and no one would believe him/her. When it was unraveled, the public would see the truth that it was done and covered up very high up in the church. It's all unbelievable, but true. If a woman is told she might have cancer or scared into surgery some other way, but there is no record of any conversations, only a consent form that says TAH SBO, then the woman has no proof of anything. If these doctors knew they couldn't get away with it, they wouldn't have been able to amputate the reproductive sex organs of nearly half the female population in the U.S, but they know they can, and the sheer numbers prove it. If this is not an attack on U.S. women, I don't know what is. Suing a doctor is very difficult if not impossible in most cases. The cards are stacked against the victim right from the beginning. The doctor and his/her attorney have access to every bit of personal information about the patient from the time they were born, but the victim has no access to any information about the doctor. It's not hard to tell who is making the laws. The ceilings on medical malpractice make it difficult for attorneys to even bring a case, and the other rules of law make it nearly impossible to prevail. Add to that the doctor is held in high esteem and that most juries will find for the doctor over 90% of the time. Most people don't want to believe a doctor could do something wrong, just like a priest. The HERS Foundation shows it all on their website and blog, yet it is just ignored by the medical boards, ACOG and law enforcement. The status quo and the standard of care allows a gynecologist to do anything within his judgment, and basically that means, the doctor can do whatever he wants and there are no limits. That's a lot of unchecked power to give anyone. Even if that judgment is questioned by another doctor, there are plenty more doctors to come to his/her rescue and say that whatever was done, was within the standard of care, no matter how outrageous it is. There is a poster on here and on the HERS Foundation who did file a complaint with her medical board, but they found that the doctor did nothing wrong in amputating all her sex organs, even though she only had one ovarian tumor or cyst. Any reasonably knowledgeable person can see that's ridiculous, but the medical board's findings are no surprise. Of course, if the medical board, and the legal system can't help, there's always the police department. So when the woman goes to the police department with this complicated subject and tells her story to the street cops, but the doctors tell the police that it was the proper surgery, then what? Well, the doctor is held in high esteem, and the woman is just a liar making it all up. For the women who speak out about this, it's like fighting a bulldozer with a piece of Kleenex. Women do not have an rights when it comes to their reproductive sex organs in the U.S. Doctors have already decided that nearly half the women in the U.S. don't need them. We know this because doctors have already amputated them. In the end, one way or another the woman is always silenced and the doctor is rewarded.

At Monday, August 10, 2009 2:07:00 PM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

Jeanne, do me and the rest of us a favor and present this information as a letter or e-mail directly to the ACOG and to your local medical board (if in the USA) and then copy their responses and write them here. I want to see exactly how these bodies respond to your challenging description of what is going on in the United States. Let's see how they handle your concerns. Will they appear to have read what you wrote and if so will they show interest to explain what is happening or what can be done to mitigate your and the others significant concerns. ..Maurice.

At Monday, August 10, 2009 3:18:00 PM, Anonymous Jeanne said...

Dr. Mo, writing the medical board and ACOG and posting their response on this blog is a good idea (although I already know the answer, if any). Regardless, I will be glad to do it or try to get someone else to (if anyone else reading will, that would be great). Right now I am involved in a legal battle over this very thing so I am not able to do it until it is over. The legal battle has only caused me more pain and hasn't gotten me anywhere, and won't. It's one nightmare after another. It'd be great if someone would jump in and do it right away, but I know most women are afraid to because they get attacked and vilified for speaking out.

At Tuesday, August 11, 2009 7:03:00 PM, Anonymous Sam said...

I sympathize with American lead such medical lives which clearly detracts from your quality of life.
It's not surprising you end up harmed and distressed.

You have annual gyn exams starting from your late teens (if not earlier) - NOT DONE ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD. (except Germany)
You have more pap smears (BY FAR) than any other women in the world. (Finland - 5-7 tests in total = lowest rates of cancer and biopsies (and false positives)
The States - 55 or more tests plus the highest rates of biopsies (and false positives in the world) - almost 95% will face biopsies. (few have cancer)
These are not matters to be taken lightly - biopsies are very invasive...many women find them embarrassing/humiliating/demeaning,painful and they can leave you with damage that can cause other serious problems.
Pregnancy - US women face many more internal exams.
HRT - routine gyn exams required for HRT - NOT necessary elsewhere...
The highest number of hysterectomies in the world.
Womanhood is a disease in the States.
The whole system is set up to leave women violated, powerless and humiliated....stirrups - NOT used in other countries (except in theatre)...undressing before the Dr arrives...NOT done elsewhere.
Forced gyn exams and smears before you can access reliable birth control - NOT done elsewhere
Mammograms recommended from 40 - FAR too early....resulting in many women having biopsies which are a risk factor for cancer (not to mention traumatic)
Routine breast exams for women under 40 - NOT recommended elsewhere - in fact, Australian and UK doctors have been warned NOT to carry out routine breast exams on young women - they are MUCH more likely to harm than help.
So, when you look at women's health care across the board...
you're over-examined, over-screened and over-treated to your detriment.
This is harmful and should be a matter of real concern for every man and woman.
I can't understand why so many women go along with this...I guess many women are afraid to stop and question after so many years of this treatment. You hate it, but accept it or endure it.
It will never change while you accept it...demand better treatment, break down barriers preventing access to birth control, demand bodily autonomy - the right to say NO...
So many women are negatively affected by this abuse - you should hold a public meeting and get some media coverage.
I have US colleagues and they have all been traumatized by the US health system. They have all rejected US doctors and get their health care from Australian or other doctors. They are the lucky ones who can by-pass a highly unacceptable system.
It would only take ONE person to change all of these practices...
why not get a powerful woman on board...someone like Oprah Winfrey.
Once women see a better way, they'll be more confident to stand up for themselves and refuse unacceptable treatment.
None of this is necessary for your fact, you jeopardize your physical and mental well-being every time you agree to these excesses.

At Wednesday, August 12, 2009 9:53:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why isn't Oprah warning women on her program? I found this thread on her blog.

At Friday, August 14, 2009 12:50:00 AM, Anonymous Jeanne said...

Many women have written to Oprah. Either she just doesn't care, or even she doesn't have enough clout to fight the medical establishment.

At Friday, August 14, 2009 9:51:00 AM, Anonymous Jeanne said...

This is slightly off topic, but it shows just how powerful the medical and pharmaceutical establishments are. No one is being prosecuted as usual:

How can we ever stop doctors from removing women's sex organs, when these kind of things are allowed to go on?

At Friday, August 14, 2009 10:09:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Write to every branch of the American Government. The American population should be warned of all of this information and educating themselves in alternative herbal medicines and diet. And then all of us should be growing herbs and vegetables in our yards and rooftops and staying away from the medical industry and pharmaceutical products like they are the plague.

At Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:26:00 PM, Anonymous Ruth said...

I basically do that...I avoid doctors unless it's for something specific and contained.
I see a dermatologist for vitilego and dermatitis and that's about it.
I won't be "processed" like other women.
One of my friends saw a new doctor for migraine headaches and was asked about her periods. Her periods have always been totally normal and a non-issue.
He suggested that a hysterectomy might help her migraines...settle down her hormones which are known to trigger migraines.
She was stunned...
He added that having periods at 39 must be a nuisance anyway....
How would he know?
Needless to say, she never went back to that doctor and ignored his advice.
Some meditation and yoga have helped a need for major surgery after all!

At Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:31:00 PM, Anonymous Joanna said...

Oprah is close to many doctors who appear on her show and they often push unnecessary heath checks like annnual gyn exams that are not done in other countries so have dubious benefit to say the least...
I guess she would feel could at least be open for discussion though...any medical professional who refuses to debate and discuss any topic makes me nervous.
It's an indication of sensitivity and defensivenenss to major flaws in the system or a closed lights should activate with any of those things.

At Sunday, August 16, 2009 8:47:00 PM, Anonymous Jeanne said...

This is actually posted on the website of St. John's Mercy Medical Center (St. Louis, MO) where they are advertising graduate medical education: "Abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies are the bread and butter of the gynecological inpatient rotation..."

These are our "health care" professionals and our caring doctors. How sick is this? Although it's not surprising that they are so brazen when they've gotten away with doing this to almost half the female population in the U.S. Why isn't anyone stopping this??

At Sunday, August 16, 2009 9:54:00 PM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

What I find is missing in many (but not all) of the postings here is a lack of documentation and particularly a lack of setting reported expressions or commentaries in the proper context from which they were taken. An example of my concern is that of the posting by Jeanne today.

The description on the hospital website was a description of the type of educational experience that is available for the gynecologic resident training program. It states:

The general Gynecological Service at
St. John's Mercy Medical Center is composed of cases from the Resident Continuity of Care Clinic as well as cases provided by the general gynecological attending physicians. Approximately 1,600 major cases and 1,000 minor cases occur in the five Gyn-dedicated Operating Rooms. Residents evaluate the patients in the preoperative area and participate fully in the surgical procedures under the guidance of the attending staff and faculty. The large number of surgeries provides rapid advancement in the acquisition of surgical techniques. Abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies are the bread and butter of the gynecological inpatient rotation as well as training in dilation and curettage, diagnostic & operative hysteroscopy, and laparoscopy.
Daily rounds are performed by the residents, while attending rounds occur weekly with one of the faculty. This busy and dynamic service provides the core of the gynecological experience for the residents during their four year experience.

Notice the context in which the "bread and butter" expression is used.

From the Encarta World Enlish Dictionary, there are 2 uses of the expression "bread and butter":
1. "Sustaining income: a dependable source of income.
2. "Mainstay: something that is the essential or sustaining part of something else"

Now, back to the context. The sentence states "Abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies are the bread and butter of the gynecological inpatient rotation..."

It is clear to anyone taking time to read the whole expression to realize that its use was in the context of use #2 "Mainstay: something that is the essential or sustaining part of something else"
nothing further.

Sometimes, I find some of the comments are written here that, like some of the current Town Hall meetings on healthcare reform, is mostly shouting rather than thinking.

By the way, for documentation, here is the link to the St.John's Mercy Medical Center website statement.


At Monday, August 17, 2009 4:25:00 AM, Anonymous Mattie said...

Surely you have more common sense than your last comment shows, doctor!
I hope epidemic and unethical unnecessary hysterectomy is put "out of business" by the "Obama" administration.
Then all of the gynecologists performing unnecessary hysterectomy, female sex organ amputations for "support", can "support" each other while they are "crapping their pants".

At Monday, August 17, 2009 8:07:00 AM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

Mattie, your posting demonstrates again my point about ignoring context. My post was not defending nor supporting advice of gynecologists for hysterectomies, I was writing about failure of some posting here to recognize context of the words they are quoting and I gave examples. I was not commenting about Obama's healthcare program either but giving an example of thoughtless (out of context) behavior of some at the Town Hall meetings as seen on TV. To describe the House bill as approving "death panels" is out of keeping (not in the context) of what is actually written in the bill and what doctors have been doing or should have been doing for years: communicating and educating their patients about the need and value of advance directives and the options for care which the patient can select and the physician must follow. With regard to hysterectomies, as an example, all a patient has to do is read the arguments presented by HERS and then simply reject the advice of the physician for the procedure. Those who reject HERS arguments can do otherwise if they desire. The only thing I can do to facilitate such decisions on my blog is to present the documented data and links provided by HERS so for those who are unaware of HERS can have an opportunity to learn HERS views. I have done that throughout these 2 sections. ..Maurice.

At Monday, August 17, 2009 4:00:00 PM, Anonymous Jeanne said...

Dr. Mo, I disagree. I didn't post the whole paragraph because it is irrelevant and does not change the meaning. And thank you for the definition of "bread and butter" because it just furthers my point. This advertisement is stating that hysterectomies are their "sustaining income: a dependable source of income." Note that they single out abdominal hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy (and we know why). They are being honest in showing that this is how you sustain your income. They also state, "The large number of surgeries provides rapid advancement in the acquisition of surgical techniques." It is very clear that they are promising a large number of hysterectomy surgeries. Any reasonable thinking person might wonder how they can promise so many surgeries ahead of time? How do they know ahead of time that such a large amount of women will "need" a hysterectomy and/or castration operation? I think it's very plain and very obvious.

Let me ask you this, what if hysterectomy was removed from the advertisement, then what would actually sustain them? They singled out hysterectomy for a reason which is what we have been writing about here now for years.

To say that all a patient has to do is read the HERS information and reject their physician's advice, makes something very complicated sound very simple, which is inaccurate. You are (1) assuming that every woman in the U.S. knows about the HERS Foundation (or your blog), (2) that every women has a choice to say "no" and have the doctor respect their wishes and (3) that it is the woman's fault and the doctor has no responsibility. I think it is wonderful that you have brought this subject to light on your blog (and it might save many women), but women are not the problem. Women do not cut themselves open and remove their sex organs, doctors do it and they have done it to the tune of nearly 1/2 the female population in the U.S. which is outrageous and horrifying. So, whether it is "bread and butter" or "sustaining income", it's all the same. They are mutilating women for profit regardless of whether it just makes them a millionaire, or a billionaire.

At Tuesday, August 18, 2009 7:52:00 PM, Anonymous Margaret O said...

I think the numbers mean an investigation is required.
On a coach tour of Europe last year the talk turned to of the American women was still recovering from her operation.
I was dismayed to hear that 9 of the 13 American women on our coach had had a hysterectomy...some for things that sounded quite minor, "you must be sick of periods by now"...
Of the Australian and English women on the coach...only 2 out of 25 had had a for uterine cancer and the other for heavy and very painful periods.
These women were 55 and 67...while the US women ranged from 39 to 55, so quite a bit younger.
I thought that was quite astonishing.
I'm not sure what's going on over there, but I'd be getting a second opinion from a foreign doctor before I followed the advice of an American doctor.
No the people and your country...not sure about your doctors!

At Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:43:00 PM, Anonymous Jeanne said...

Margaret, I used to love my country too until I was literally attacked by a doctor doing his morning hysterectomy/castration operation on me without my consent. Although I was devastated, shocked and horrified at what was done to me, what is even worse is that a staff of about 6 stood by and watched this doctor do it to me, and even helped him. Then to add to it, I've learned that this has been going on for decades, and neither the government or law enforcement will do anything to stop it. It's the perfect crime here in the States.

Thanks for showing the discrepancy in numbers from other countries to the U.S. It's an outrage and a sickening crime that is going on here behind closed doors in the "safety" of our hospitals.

At Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:50:00 PM, Anonymous Nina said...

This is horrifying...can't you hold a public meeting...ask women to attend and then jointly employ a good lawyer?
It seems women are treated very badly in the States.
I had an American friend for many years..we lost touch about six years ago, but she used to tell me shocking stories about the annual gyn exams pushed onto women from their teens.
Also, annual smears (even for virgins!) that lead to lots of biopsies for false positives.
I read that most women in the States (roughly 95%)end up having colposcopy and biopsies in her lifetime...most for false positives. If you're over-screened, you chance of having treatment for a false positive goes UP...with all the risks.
You have about 50+ tests in your lifetime - a LOT more than other countries.
Finland has the lowest rates of cervical cancer and false positives and biopsies in the world...they offer screening from age 30 and then 5 yearly stopping at 50, 55 or 60....(5-7 tests in total)
Also, beware - 10 million US women who've had hysterectomies for benign conditions are still being screened every year even though they're NO risk for this cancer AND doctors were told MANY years ago, NOT to screen these women.
I think US women need to be very cautious and you must do something about it...with so many women affected, you'd have no trouble organizing a class action.
I would have thought lawyers would be fighting for the case...the evidence is striking.
I send you all my best wishes and sincerely hope you can stop this abuse.
You all deserve to be treated humanely...
Surely this can't be happening in America - it seems unbelievable to me. (10 million screened with no cervix)
PS the screening can't be justified on the grounds they're looking for vaginal cancer - it's rarer than penile if that's the case, start rounding up the just becomes ridiculous.
The fact remains...these doctors are ignoring their medical associations who've told them very clearly NOT to screen.

At Saturday, August 22, 2009 8:10:00 PM, Anonymous Mattie said...

Gynecologists "Bank" on "Women" being "Too Embarrassed" to be honest after sex organ amputation in the U.S.A, and it works.
The women "Too Embarrassed" allow the sex organ amputation-hysterectomy/female castration epidemic to continue by their silence concerning the consequences of the de-sexing surgeries.
History, however, will correct the "female embarrassment factor" and "gynecological medical nonsense". History will eventually rule that the "American Government" and the "Medical Industry" perpetrated an epidemic de-sexing of it's female citizens by gynecological medical deceit for profit in our current history. The women who are lying to protect their "self image" now, will be exposed in history.
Medical truth can't lie to protect an atrocity this huge, the numbers don't lie and the gynecological medical facts are clear.

At Saturday, August 22, 2009 8:51:00 PM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

I still must interrupt again this flood of overstated words which paint doctors and actions non-selectively and, in fact, irrationally. Most surgeries are performed as standards of professional practice and with informed consent of the patient. The words as used demand action by the authorities in medicine, government and law. It is inconceivable to me if such violations of patient consent and her body was going on in such a universal fashion that there would be no legal repercussions.

Mattie, atrocities against humans require immediate cessation under international law. So rather then wastomg time expounding your views here, present your case to the appropriate authorities. Again, keep us informed on the results. ..Maurice.

At Sunday, August 23, 2009 3:35:00 AM, Anonymous Mattie said...

Dr. Mo...Yes, I'm working on it! and you have all of the gynecological numbers, statistics and medical facts at your finger tips.
I feel like a "Bic Lighter" thrown into the gutter at this point. Let me remind you that I am a trained fine artist, with no medical background. I am merely "one" of the "tens of millions" of women living without female sex organs, amputated by gynecological medical deceit for profit, in America today. I , after being subjected to this horrifying gynecological medical de-sexing by medical deceit for profit, know and have learned what is being done to women.
The medical "myths" concerning female de-sexing in America are so ingrained in our society that it has become accepted as "truth" in society and "obscured" within the medical industry. A "medically impossible/legally protected medical industry secret" epidemic in proportion, harming society and "ridiculous" medically. So, try telling that to an attorney, who already knows they can't profit from a "medically accepted myth" harming society, epidemic or not. The attorneys might "piss off" their "physician friends" at the "country clubs" in the process, too!...wouldn't that be terrible!

At Wednesday, August 26, 2009 2:16:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have mentioned on your blog that women should go to the authorities if a crime has been committed. In New York, the department of health is charged with legal over site of the doctors and hospitals. I have written numerous letters to the department of health. In particular concerning ghost surgery by partially trained residents in which I was very seriously injured. The investigator agreed after a review of my records, that residents had operated on me. He stated that" the standards " are very low. We really are not going to do anything unless he was drunk or on drugs and we can prove it." I experienced extreme hostility as a victim by the Department of Health personnel. It was very emotionally difficult to persue. I also wrote to the department of health about the blatant falsification of my medical records which were submitted to a court of law. This is a felony. They refused to take any action. The courts were hostile to me and several other victims of this doctor. Why? I don't know exactly but I think it comes down to a question of where the powerful connections lie with law firms and public relation firms who work for the doctor and the hospital. Little people don't get justice. The hospital takes out multi- million dollar ads promoting itself to the public . The members of the Board of Trustees of this hospital are among the most powerful people in New York and include the husband of the Regent of New York state. The Regent and her husband have pledged 40 million dollars to this hospital. Can I compete with this? Absolutely not.

At Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:22:00 AM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

Why don't you communicate your experience to the New York City mayor? He seems a good guy and sensitive to the concerns of the citizens of the city. Have you told your story to the ACLU? (The ACLU seems to have clout.)

Please identify yourself with a pseudonym and then return with a followup if you want to try my advice. ..Maurice.

At Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:34:00 PM, Anonymous Mad as Hell said...

Dr. Mo,

You stated "Most surgeries are performed as standards of professional practice and with informed consent of the patient."

Sadly, hysterectomy has been a standard of professional practice but it should NOT be since it's permanently damaging causing more problems than it solves. Does "first do no harm" mean nothing to you and your peers?

And, there's not ONE woman I know (in person or from all the forums I've frequented) who was told the facts about the consequences of hysterectomy and/or ovary removal. As a matter of fact, most of them were lied to in order to get their consent for organ removal.

Also, I've heard many stories of "doctored" records and collusion amongst doctors. In my case, the oncologist appeared to have colluded with my long-time ob/gyn as his records stated "removal of ovary with cyst with possibility of TAH/BSO." But that was NOT communicated to my husband and me. His records also stated that my sister had ovarian cancer. She did NOT. I don't think these were simply mistakes!

At Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:01:00 PM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

To Mad as Hell but to others here too, may I make a suggestion that hasn't been mentioned here previously? Yes, if you go to court on any of these issues about what the doctor said or what history you gave to the doctor, how about going to court with a recording of what actually happened at the consent session and eliminate any "hearsay" controversy. And perhaps after a patient reviews the recording, the confusion will be clarified and going to court will no longer be an option. Look, with all those recording devices including tiny video cameras, why not record for the future (both for your recollection but also for the court, if necessary) what you said and what the doctor said. If the doctor,explaining to him/her these upsetting situations that have arisen both with you and others, the doctur should be open for audio/video documentation. What is there to hide? Certainly it would be in the best interest of the doctor to have what he or she heard and what you had said and agreed or disagreed to documented for further review. Some may say that these recordings could be faked by editing but I think that this act would be rare and that the current electronic forensics are sufficient to discover a faked video or audio document.

It doesn't hurt to try. And it would even be to the doctor's advantage to do their own recording, of course, with the patient's permission.

I have watched orthopedic surgery performed with video recording and step by step description of the procedure in order to produce a tape to be handed to the patient after surgery for the documentation of the procedure. Try it and if the doctor refuses.. you know you are not intended to be a patient in that office.

Let's hear from you all about using this technique so at least all this fretting about inadequately "informed" consent or misrepresenting history in the charting can be mitigated and fully avoided. ..Maurice.

At Thursday, August 27, 2009 8:15:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


At Friday, August 28, 2009 1:31:00 PM, Anonymous Jeanne said...

I also thought the word "fretting" was demeaning word to use when you are speaking to traumatized women who have been hysterectomized and castrated after being deceived into unnecessary surgery. I can guarantee you that no gynecologist who plans to do this to a woman is going to allow her to record them. I only wish that my experience was recorded because the doctor would now be in prison. The only way you could catch them is to use a hidden camera or recording device and then that's not admissible in court. Although, I'm sure it would be interesting to the media.

But what is wrong with this picture? Is our healthcare system so greed driven that women going to a gynecologist need to take a hidden camera to avoid being hysterectomized and castrated? What kind of country do we live in? That's what I ask myself everyday now. Where am I?

At Friday, August 28, 2009 2:58:00 PM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

If "fretting" is too benign a term of a woman's concern it seems to me that if women don't make informed consent what it should be "truly informed consent" then all I can see is simply "fretting". Truly informed consent can consist of documenting the education that the physician must discuss with the patient before surgery. It also requires the woman to review the education with others (like HERS) if standards of practice are commonly felt to be controversial or if it is felt to be incomplete or misleading, before the document is signed. And I doubt all such surgeries are extreme emergencies that must be approved within minutes of anesthesia. The woman has time to think it out. So informed consent is a two way street: the physician must fully educate the patient and the patient must take the time to review this education before making a decision. The review should include the consideration of whether the physician answered all the patient's questions, whether the risks and benefits appeared fairly stated and whether the patient has trust in the physician.

Audio and/or video documentation can be of value in this review since memory can be faulty at times of stress. These methods of documentation can also be valuable for court use later if necessary. And again, remember that the doctor-patient relationship is established by both parties and if a doctor refuses, after explanation of necessity by the patient, to have his or her communication with the patient documented then, well, "you know that your are not intended to be a patient in that office." ..Maurice.

At Friday, August 28, 2009 9:20:00 PM, Anonymous Jeanne said...

Well, I agree that the video would be a good idea to weed them out, although, the woman may find that there is no one that will treat her if she insists on a recording device. I hope someone does it and reports back. It would be great if the media would suggest this for women, but that will never happen. And FYI, the surgery that was performed on me was not urgent, but I was led to believe it was.

At Friday, August 28, 2009 9:34:00 PM, Anonymous Mattie said...

Dr Mo, You said: "It also requires the woman to review the education with others (like HERS) if standards of practice are commonly felt to be controversial or if it is felt to be incomplete or misleading, before the document is signed."

With all due respect, Dr. Mo: Would you agree that (HERS Female Anatomy -The Functions of the Female Organs) DVD should, by law, be shown to all U.S females before they are given a sex organ amputation or female castration?
Easily and inexpensively given to a female patient the HERS DVD would put a screeching halt to unnecessary hysterectomy and oophorectomy surgeries in the U.S.
Why do you think gynecologists use the word "hysterectomy" instead of "sex organ amputation"?
Why do you think gynecologists use the word "oophorectomy" instead of "female castration"?

At Friday, October 09, 2009 9:59:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here in Sydney, Australia it was front page news a couple of weeks ago that a man's sex life (gasp) was compromised because of prostate cancer surgery. Why is one man's altered sex life front page news when millions of women have had this happen and it isn't even acknowledged?
Is it because there is still a vagina after hysterectomy so technically a woman can still have sex? It amazes me how ignorant doctors are regarding which organs are needed for women to have fulfilling sex.

At Tuesday, October 13, 2009 4:11:00 AM, Anonymous Jeanne said...

NP, thanks for the story. It is really astounding, but I don't think it's ignorance, they just don't care about women or their well being. If they cared, they wouldn't have hysterectomized nearly half the population of women in the U.S., and continue to find new ways to do it, i.e. robotic hysterectomy. Big business and greed have no conscience.

At Tuesday, October 13, 2009 5:42:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was faced with the prospect of hysterectomy just a couple of weeks ago when I was pregnant with my last child due to placenta percreta and previa. All I can say is thank goodness I came across across this site earlier this year by accident. I had to meet with a gynecoligical oncologist who said almost immediately that sex would be better after hysterectomy than before (that sounded huge warning bells for me). I felt I was being railroaded into having a hysterectomy so much so that I actually had to threaten not not show up for the caesarian. Finally they respected my wishes and they used an alternative:
uterine artery embolization. Not ideal but a much better choice.
Thankyou Dr Bertstein for this site.

At Friday, October 16, 2009 1:04:00 AM, Anonymous Jeanne said...

NP, that is quite a harrowing story. It sounds much like what I was confronted with (under different circumstances), although I'm glad you were in better condition than I was at the time. I'm not familiar with your condition, but I'm glad you came out of it with your body parts. That's wonderful! It's not often we hear that someone read the info here and was saved because of it. So thanks very much for posting about it. I wish that I would have known about this before I was taken to ER that night. I had no idea that doctors were doing this to women. I had felt like I was being railroad too, and I refused to consent, but that didn't stop them either. Women need to be very careful around these doctors, glad you were! I would also like to thank Dr. Mo for his blog. Thanks Dr. Mo!

At Friday, October 16, 2009 4:59:00 AM, Anonymous Mattie said...

Hello NP,
I am glad you found this blog and have not had a hysterectomy, consider yourself just plain lucky, so far.
Female reproductive sex organ surgical consent form loop-holes allow greedy medical doctors full reign to hysterectomize women legally, especially if the woman say's she is not planning to have any more children. Never tell a gynecologist you are finished having children, ever.
Apparently UAE is very destructive and can be a stepping stone to hysterectomy, which is medically known. Were you informed of the dangers of the procedure and the possibilities of permanent physical and uterine damage caused by receiving a UAE?
To ensure women walk out of the hospitals with their sex organs intact, I suggest all women have an attorney draw up their consent form for any future female organ procedure. Surgical consent form loop-holes included in almost all female gynecological surgical procedures including hospital births, caesarian sections, UAE, etc., allow for hysterectomy, if you read and understand the fine print.
Knowing what I know now, I would never schedule an office visit or surgical procedure with a gynecologist or woman's hospital, hysterectomized or not. Gynecologists and radiologists are mutilating the female population of the U.S.A with false gynecological medical information using knives, lazars, pellets and legalized false gynecological medical information.
I have much more respect for womankind than utilizing or promoting a medical specialty that is systematically and unnecessarily surgically desexualizing and severely harming women in epidemic proportion by deceit world-wide.

At Wednesday, October 21, 2009 8:26:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No Mattie I wasn't informed about the dangers of UAE. However, I was told that it was experimental. At the same time I had my caesarian another woman with placenta accreta had a caesarian and then a hysterectomy an hour later because she started to hemorrhage. She did not have UAE. We'll never know if UAE made a difference for me but I felt I had to choose the lesser of the two evils. Unfortunately I did not do much research about UAE and it is too late now. I will just cross my fingers and hope for the best.
PS you are so right about never telling a gynecologist that you are done with having children. She asked me that and I foolishly said "yes" and then she "recommended" the hysterectomy.

At Wednesday, December 16, 2009 3:53:00 PM, Anonymous Med. doctors/Stop this crime said...


To say I am angry is so minimal to how I truly feel about what is being done to women.
The overlooked silent crime of epidemic unwarranted Hysterectomy, Oophorectomy surgeries will eventually be outlined in history as the most heinous crime against humanity ever recorded.

At Wednesday, February 24, 2010 5:29:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't miss the Dr. Oz show tomorrow, February 25th. The show is called "The #1 surgery you don't need, hysterectomy."

At Sunday, June 26, 2011 3:33:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it constitutes 'cruel and unusual punishment' to surgically castrate convicted sex offenders. Yet, American gynecologists sexually castrate over half a million women a year; women who have committed no crime. This alone speaks volumes. For more information on this issue, please visit my web site at

At Sunday, June 26, 2011 9:54:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Bernstein, I wrote the last comment on your blog dated June 26 2010. I meant to use a pseudonym as you requested. My pseudonym is Jiggaz31

I never had a female problem of any kind in my life. My stomach bloated from 29" to 47" in a period of a week four years ago in July of 2007. I went to see a gynecologist to see if he could determine why I suddenly looked full-term pregnant. I was a healthy 46 year old woman at the time, engaged and planning to have a baby.

The gynecologist told me that he could put a light inside my pelvic cavity and look to see if he could determine the reason for my bloated abdomen.

To make a long story short, I went to the hospital two days after agreeing to the 'light surgery' and 'possible' removal of my uterus ONLY and then ONLY if he could be certain that my uterus was enlarged and causing my deformity; which was doubtful.

The hospital nurse asked me to sign a consent form which allowed for removal of all six of my healthy female organs. I refused to sign consent for surgery and asked to speak to my doctor.

While I was waiting to speak with my doctor, a male nurse came into my room and said he was going to give me something to relax me but assured me he was not in any way putting me to sleep due to my decision not to have surgery.

The male nurse injected my IV and that was my last waking memory. I woke up and didn't realize I had even been asleep. When I asked a nurse where my family went, she told me that I was in recovery and that I had had surgery and all of my female sex organs had been removed. I cried out that I wanted to die. This is documented in my hospital record.

I later learned that once I had been put to sleep, the nurse got my mother to illegally sign for the surgery I had refused to sign for only minutes earlier. My doctor did not perform the surgery my mother illegally signed for. She signed for a supracervical hysterectomy. The pathology report clearly indicates that my cervix was removed.

I contacted dozens of lawyers and nearly every lawyer I spoke with said that hysterectomy is a very common surgery and that a hysterectomy case is just not worth taking on; especially in states where there are caps in place in regard to what a jury can award.

I did not give up. I finally found an attorney willing to take my case. He was on the case for over two years and then suddenly and without warning (just before my trial date) quit.

I did find another attorney. It's been four years and I'm still in litigation.

Via deposition, my doctor admitted that he altered my record after I asked for a received a copy of it. He said he 'routinely' alters patients records. He also made up an elaborate story about how he and I had made an agreement that he would obtain consent from my mother regarding what organs to remove from me the day of surgery. He went on to say that this is his 'standard procedure' and that he obtains most of his consents from someone other than the patient.

I have worked with lawmakers in Indiana and Kentucky in regard to hysterectomy informed consent laws (or the lack thereof) and I'm currently working with the Executive Vice-President of ACOG in D.C. regarding the misinformation contained in ACOG's Patient Hysterectomy Information Pamphlet. My testimony and related correspondence with lawmakers and ACOG is contained on my web site.

At Thursday, April 05, 2012 2:18:00 PM, Anonymous Anna said...

I was damaged and deprived of my uterus due to one fibroid, in Poland. I had consented to a myomectomy and woken up without my uterus, my life has become a nightmare. Needles to describe, it's obvious...I could have lived just as well with my heavy menstruation, it was NOT life-threatening AT ALL. After I was hysterectomised, I was told that "it is so beneficial as I will never develop cancer there". I completely lost my sexuality, I have been extremely depressed, on pills, out of work, urinary and sexual handicap, I begged my husband for divorce...The hospital and doctors there are UNTOUCHABLE, when I tried to sue them - they threatened me with psychiatric hospital. I was told: you are the only one with so many problems after all-curing hysterectomy, it's all in your head...", etc.

There are women after hysterectomy who claim to feel better, or Ok, or having "mind-blowing orgasms" ?

I/m sorry, hard to believe. Are they imroving and protecting their self-image or are they just the people hired and paid for it on the "medical websites" that are marketing hysterectomy business?

At Sunday, July 29, 2012 1:31:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm SO sorry this was done to you! Sadly I know all too well how you feel! If you happen to come back to this blog and see this post, please post your experience on the HERS Foundation's blog at Click on the Blog button. A page of current and former blogs will come up. Scroll down to the end of the current blog and click on the Comments link to add your comment.

At Tuesday, January 06, 2015 8:00:00 PM, Anonymous June Gardner said...

I live in Australia and I never suffered any gynaecological problems. A female GP started fabricating I had things wrong with me and kept sending me to gynaecologists. First she said I had a polyp but non was found. She then said I had post-menopausal bleeding but that was a lie. I had not one single drop of blood since my menopause finished over 5 years before. She sent me to a gynaecologist who forced me into a curette. He then said I had cancer and had to have an immediate radical hysterectomy. I kept saying "NO" but he would not take "NO' for an answer. He chopped out 6 organs and lymph nodes, and smugly told me the day after the surgery that all my removed organs had been healthy. Then they said the cancer was cured with the curette. He botched it horrendously and nobody will fix it. I'm still bleeding from the surgery, and am crippled in agony every day. The whole system sided with the doctors, and told me I was paranoid. I have now learned my radical hysterectomy was 100% unnecessary.


Post a Comment

<< Home