Should surgery for permanent incontinence be allowed on those who claim to suffer from living in a continent body?

[cathdiap]

I know some of us would like to have this procedure done on themselves to become incontinent and diaper dependent for life.

• Should we keep refusing to make them incontinent with a medical procedure no matter what situation they are in? 
• Should we protect those people from decisions taken too lightly that permanently damage their bodies by introducing a period that they are incontinent by means of an irremovable stent for a year?
• Should we lift all medical regulations and leave it all up to the free will of people to live their lifes the way they want?

I would choose the second option on the condition that they have to pay for their diapers themselves.

[CodHero24]

"Be Careful what you Wish For........"

[kasarberang]

I believe this should be fine, but the person who decides to do this to themselves should be barred from any governmental assistance regarding any medical help/resources they may need which was directly caused due to the surgery they opted into. It feels like it would be taking money away from disabled people who did not actively choose to be disabled.

This is of course only applicable if they would have not received these benefits regardless. Obviously, if your country has free healthcare, you should not miss out on those benefits as you would have had them regardless of had you gotten this surgery or not.

I'm just saying you should not be able to gain benefits because you willingly got an operation, which in turn caused you to need certain care, resources, etc.. that you otherwise would not have needed and those added expenses should be your responsibility.

[Little Cub Pants]

Well THIS definitely is an interesting topic, for sure!?

Honestly, I feel like this one is a tricky topic for me. Because on the one hand, you can say that, well no, it's not a medical procedure because one could argue that it's on the same level as getting Botox for wrinkles. But on the other hand, you could say it's a medical procedure because one could argue that it's on the same level as a transgender transition surgery. And as to whether or not they would get benefits from it or because of it, well I would say that depends on if transgender people get benefits for changing genders essentially. But the more I think about it, the more I agree with @kasarberang. In that they probably shouldn't get benefits because of something they opted to do to themselves. But I'm sure you can make an argument for the other perspective as well. So really, I just think it's up to you honestly. Just be SURE that it's something YOU want.

[Little Sherri]

It's an interesting question. Most professionals would probably view it as "damaging" someone, and hence, potentially antithetical to their "do no harm" ethos. 

But then again, gender confirmation surgery was viewed as "harming" someone for a long time, but there has been a fair bit of progress in how that is now handled, depending on where you live. You might have to pay for it yourself, but the procedure itself isn't considered "unethical" if it is done after sufficient consultation. In Canada, where I live, the surgery is funded by the public system in most provinces, although other related procedures, such as breast augmentations or reductions, may not be, as they are viewed as "cosmetic". 

So, the question is, will medical ethics ever come to view "incontinence desires" as being of sufficient profundity to rate being considered "necessary", ethically, for some people? Part of that might be undertaking a study of people who self-identify that way, to try and empirically document how "permanent" those desires are. In the case of gender confirmation, there are vanishingly few people who ever want to "go back", and, a lot of them would live as their preferred gender, regardless of if they had the surgery or not, which suggests that there probably won't be much "buyer's remorse", something that probably weighs into any consideration of permanently surgically altering bodies. 

I don't know if there is a good body of evidence for the permanence of incontinent desires, or not. Having spent the last three years going about my life wearing diapers all the time, everywhere, I feel like I never want to go back, but at the same time, I'm not a good example, because I don't think I'd undertake surgically making myself incontinent, even if the government would pick up the tab for it. I haven't even played around with stents. But I have met a lot of people here who have been "into" diapers for a very long time, often since early childhood, and most of them will attest to the "permanence" of such interests. 

However, I have also read a lot about people going through purge cycles, swearing off diapers, taking months or years off from dabbling in them. So for those people, altering themselves surgically at a time when their desires were more present, might have been a mistake. For others, the purge part of their nappy cycle might have been misery for them, and maybe if they couldn't have gone back, they would have been happier.

Would some poor soul have incontinence surgery, and then meet the girl/guy of his/her/their dreams, find out that their not into diapers, and then want to go back? I guess that any professional willing to consider performing such a procedure would really need to feel that they knew their patient well, so there would have to be some kind of process for ruling out impulsive requests, and also making sure that the person making the request is doing it of their own free will, and not because their partner wants them that way, and that they're competent to make such a decision. 

In the case of gender confirmation, there is a fairly good body of evidence to suggest that not offering it to people who really need it can do more harm than good; people sometimes resort to suicide, or, they exist in chronic misery, when consigned to bodies of the "incorrect" gender. Is wanting to be incontinent, and being "trapped" in a continent body, as psychologically harmful? Maybe to some. The question is, how do you quantify that with sufficient robustness to convince hospital ethics boards and insurance companies? 

[squishii]

To be honest, I think forcing yourself to be incontinent is a bad idea. As someone already said, "be careful for what you wish for". I think that quote works greatly in this situation because of how bad I've heard incontinence can be. I get it, you want to be liable on diapers, and that's fine. But you got to be aware that there's more than just being stuck in diapers forever. If you're ready to deal with that, by all means, go ahead. But if not, then just don't do it. So, ultimately, the best choice is the middle. It's kind of like a demo of what to expect when you're incontinent. If they get through it with no regrets, then they should be able to have it.

[kasarberang]

38 minutes ago, BabySpiderBoy said:

Well THIS definitely is an interesting topic, for sure!?

Honestly, I feel like this one is a tricky topic for me. Because on the one hand, you can say that, well no, it's not a medical procedure because one could argue that it's on the same level as getting Botox for wrinkles. But on the other hand, you could say it's a medical procedure because one could argue that it's on the same level as a transgender transition surgery. And as to whether or not they would get benefits from it or because of it, well I would say that depends on if transgender people get benefits for changing genders essentially. But the more I think about it, the more I agree with @kasarberang. In that they probably shouldn't get benefits because of something they opted to do to themselves. But I'm sure you can make an argument for the other perspective as well. So really, I just think it's up to you honestly. Just be SURE that it's something YOU want.

I feel transgender people are different than this situation. I think this is closer to cutting off my legs because I don't want to walk anymore. If I later decide "Eh, this whole not having legs thing isn't for me, I want my legs back" that's not a choice I get to make. At the very least the care required for changing genders is non-damaging unless you opt for bottom surgery, but at that point you're fairly committed to it, and I'd debate that the mental dysphoria caused by not transitioning would actually be worse than the potential damage to the surgery if one wanted to get it.

 

If I wanted to transition, I couldn't just decide to grow breasts, I'd need the hormones and assistance to do that. But you can just decide to not use the bathroom and just let it go, there's no need to make it, so you physically can not ever use the bathroom on your own ever again.

Just like how I can decide not to walk, but cutting off my legs would be pretty stupid because I can achieve the same effect by just, not walking. If I cut off my legs willingly, though, why should I then be given the benefits that individuals who did not choose to be disabled have?

 

Kinda scattered stream of conciousness, but hopefully I got my point across.

[cathdiap]

@squishiiJust to be clear, I do not aim for such surgery, nor do I want permanent incontinence. I am using stents to make myself incontinent. I can do it as long as I want and found out that three to four days in a row is where the fun ends for me.

[squishii]

9 minutes ago, cathdiap said:

Just to be clear, I do not aim for such surgery, nor do I want permanent incontinence. I am using stents to make myself incontinent. I can do it as long as I want and found out that three to four days in a row is where the fun ends for me.

Don't worry, I'm aware! Just wanted to leave my thoughts on the situation and also on permanent incontinence.

[Little Cub Pants]

35 minutes ago, kasarberang said:

I feel transgender people are different than this situation. I think this is closer to cutting off my legs because I don't want to walk anymore. If I later decide "Eh, this whole not having legs thing isn't for me, I want my legs back" that's not a choice I get to make. At the very least the care required for changing genders is non-damaging unless you opt for bottom surgery, but at that point you're fairly committed to it, and I'd debate that the mental dysphoria caused by not transitioning would actually be worse than the potential damage to the surgery if one wanted to get it.

 

If I wanted to transition, I couldn't just decide to grow breasts, I'd need the hormones and assistance to do that. But you can just decide to not use the bathroom and just let it go, there's no need to make it, so you physically can not ever use the bathroom on your own ever again.

Just like how I can decide not to walk, but cutting off my legs would be pretty stupid because I can achieve the same effect by just, not walking. If I cut off my legs willingly, though, why should I then be given the benefits that individuals who did not choose to be disabled have?

 

Kinda scattered stream of conciousness, but hopefully I got my point across.

I think the whole wanting to cut off legs thing is the perfect analogy in this type of situation. And I think your point was very well put. As a disabled person myself, I think I can say confidently, that nobody wants to be disabled. And true, are they benefits to being disabled? absolutely. But is it worth causing on purpose? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Granted I can see where somebody is coming from with that. Because on the surface it DOES seem pretty luxurious. But that's just one aspect of it. The other aspect of it is a whole different ball game, so to speak. Meaning that there are times when it's very daunting to have because there's the whole psychological aspect of it and then there's the whole physicality part of it, which is also very hard. And can't be turned off just because you decided it's not convenient for you anymore. In the same way, the whole turning off my bladder situation may seem appealing within the moment, but there are unforeseen aspects of it you're probably not taking into account, just because you can't see that far ahead, and hindsight is always 20/20.??????☺️?♥️

[Diapered Dave]

I think stents that could ONLY be installed and removed by a doctor are a good idea.... As far as I know, this can already be done, but you can't just get one because you WANT to be diaper dependent. I think it should be allowed, like getting a boob job, or a face lift. And if it can be removed by a doctor, then it wouldn't seem to break the "Do no harm" oath that doctors take.  I already use a home-made stent, that I often wear for days or weeks at a time. But the fact that I can remove it anytime, kinda takes the realism out of it.  

[ozziebee]

I don't see much difference between gender dysphoria and continence dysphoria (having been down the road of GD/Transgender, with surgery and all that).  In order to qualify for surgery, I had to attend appointments over 1 year with a psychiatrist, have transitioned everything over (name change etc), living and dressing as female, be on hormones through an endocrinologist.  After a year, I had to go see a second psychiatrist, who had to agree with the first psych's opinion.  After that, I got the referral to the surgeon.  Yes, the MtF surgery is non-reversable, but I suppose it would be possible to revert to the birth gender through hormonal changes and dressing up etc, and some kind of artificial phallus.  

I've never looked back.  

I'd expect a patient seeking incon surgery to have gone down some similar path, with a year or more of psych consultation, second opinions sought, urology reviews done, patient living 24x7 managing diaper training/dependency under supervision.  If there is an medical option to perform temporary incon (stents, Botox, etc), then that should also be a gate along the path, as this provides everyone with an "out" if the incon is not tolerated/managed by the patient.  After this stage, then TPI should be an option opened up to the patient.  

Someone on here who has attempted going down a path to TPI, and sought surgeons is @Ferix, who would be able to comment on their experience (TLDR couldn't find a surgeon).

 

 

[Kawaharu]

Being an adult baby and Incontinent, I understand that people want and wish they were incontinent and diaper dependent but what many people don't seem to understand is that being incontinent is not glamours or all sunshine. It's not all crack up to be and what many people don't seem to see that, being Diaper dependent and Incontinent requires alot of work. Many don't read the FINE print on what it means to be completely diaper dependent and incontinent. Many don't see how being incontinent changes your life and what being diapered does to you. Many think that being diapered is very easy but many don't see what kind of work it really entails.

For example, being an incontinent, I am kept in diapers permanently and 24/7/365. I can't leave diapers if I wanted to and I'm not even potty trained as well. I carry a diaper bag no matter where I go and having a diaper bag is a constant reminder to me and everyone around me that I am incontinent. Even in my car, I have a diaper bag with me all the time for emergency blowouts in my diaper. At them same time, I constantly have to deal with the threat of diaper rashes that are very painful. Even being incontinent, diaper changes in public is often very challenging because their isn't a clean place to change your soiled diaper and you have to preplan how you'll change your diapers when your outside of the house. Even being diapered, you have to get use to having people not understand what it means to be diaper dependent and yes, I have had people who never understand why I am incontinent. Which is why many people don't understand what it means to be Incontinent and what's required. On top of that many people who want to be incontinent don't see the true cost of being incontinent and being diapered. It ain't cheap to be incontinent and it can be costly.

It's why for me as an adult baby and incontinent, I have to deal with being kept in diapers and being diapered permanently. I make the most of being incontinent by being an adult baby to help deal with my incontinence and deal with being kept in diapers. Even my doctors know I am incontinent and it's on my medical records that I am incontinent and in diapers. It's why being an adult baby and incontinent, it's often stressful and lonely but I have to make the most of what I have. It's why it's not easy for anyone to want to be incontinent but if their is one thing I would say is think long and hard and the consequences of what you are getting into.

[oznl]

This is an ethically challenging question.

First up, I’d like to dismiss the “careful what you wish for/you don’t understand how much this will suck” argument as a straw-man device.  It does not in any way challenge the validity of the “for” case but rather, attempts to threaten the arguer with vague bogey men of regret and inconvenience built upon the respondents own unfounded assumptions about how the arguer will emotionally evolve, presumably in the hope that they will just run away. 

Controls around mitigating the risk of impulsive irreversible surgery are well understood as people such as @ozziebee have pointed out.  Furthermore, many of the people seeking this have been living as incontinent for years and years.  I believe many of them have got it dialed in by now  as to what they are in for.

The core issue here is bodily autonomy.  Should people be allowed to use medical services (presumably at their own expense thus negating the "social cost" argument) to perform body hacks on their own body’s that are important to them?

I would say yes they are:  end of.  I would be fascinated to hear coherent arguments on why people should not have control of their own bodies.

Should medical governing bodies prohibit body modification practices based on their own social value system instead of their client’s even where no unavoidable and catastrophic medical complication frequently arises? *

I would say no.  If the medical fraternity struggles with that then I invite them to gaze at their navel of plastic surgeons operating in the beauty enhancement space.

Would I do it?  Mmm…  probably not.  But that does NOT map into any kind of argument that my reluctance to pursue such a measure should morph into a prohibition on others pursing it.  That’s not to say I wouldn’t be curious to try a stent.  Just for a bit.  It’s just that I don’t really want to wind up in the ER from some kind of urological DIY disaster.

* There's a caveat here.  When @Ferix pursued this head on, he hit a urological wall so to speak.  It was the believe of his urologist that the type of surgery he was seeking would inevitably result in potentially catastrophic kidney damage.  I think we'd need to see that worked through.

14 hours ago, kasarberang said:

I believe this should be fine, but the person who decides to do this to themselves should be barred from any governmental assistance regarding any medical help/resources they may need which was directly caused due to the surgery they opted into. It feels like it would be taking money away from disabled people who did not actively choose to be disabled.

This is of course only applicable if they would have not received these benefits regardless. Obviously, if your country has free healthcare, you should not miss out on those benefits as you would have had them regardless of had you gotten this surgery or not.

I'm just saying you should not be able to gain benefits because you willingly got an operation, which in turn caused you to need certain care, resources, etc.. that you otherwise would not have needed and those added expenses should be your responsibility.

Personally, I would avoid burdening the taxpayer with what was my decision also but there is an argument against this too.  Assuming that "continence dysphoria" eventually becomes defined as a disorder, then would not at this point the cost of "therapy" be considered treatment?

Additionally, imposing subjective values onto medicinal availability might be a thin end of a wedge here.  It's already been mooted that smokers should be somehow made to "pay" for the burden their habit has inflicted upon the healthcare system.  I've seen similar arguments for sufferers of Type 2 diabetes.

It's a slippery slope...

 

[cathdiap]

12 hours ago, Diapered Dave said:

I already use a home-made stent, that I often wear for days or weeks at a time. But the fact that I can remove it anytime, kinda takes the realism out of it.  

I get your point, but when you decide to take your stent out doesn't that tell you that you don't want to be incontinent any longer at that specific moment? For me it does and that is why I know that permanent incontinence is not what I really want. It is just something I like to have fantasies about. 

I think many of us like the idea of having no control over their bladder, but simply don't know how long they would like to stay in that situation. I like to compare it with people who enjoy bondage or being handcuffed and put into submission in some sort of BDSM play. Would those people also enjoy being handcuffed for the rest of their lifes and never regain their freedom? I think most of them would not. 

That is why I think the non-removable stent is the best way to determine if the wannabe ic is dealing with BIID or is just having strong (sexual) fantasies that will disappear when the harsh reality kicks in. 

[Kif]

2 hours ago, oznl said:

This is an ethically challenging question.

First up, I’d like to dismiss the “careful what you wish for/you don’t understand how much this will suck” argument as a straw-man device.  It does not in any way challenge the validity of the “for” case but rather, attempts to threaten the arguer with vague bogey men of regret and inconvenience built upon the respondents own unfounded assumptions about how the arguer will emotionally evolve, presumably in the hope that they will just run away. 

Controls around mitigating the risk of impulsive irreversible surgery are well understood as people such as @ozziebee have pointed out.  Furthermore, many of the people seeking this have been living as incontinent for years and years.  I believe many of them have got it dialed in by now  as to what they are in for.

The core issue here is bodily autonomy.  Should people be allowed to use medical services (presumably at their own expense thus negating the "social cost" argument) to perform body hacks on their own body’s that are important to them?

I would say yes they are:  end of.  I would be fascinated to hear coherent arguments on why people should not have control of their own bodies.

Should medical governing bodies prohibit body modification practices based on their own social value system instead of their client’s even where no unavoidable and catastrophic medical complication frequently arises? *

I would say no.  If the medical fraternity struggles with that then I invite them to gaze at their navel of plastic surgeons operating in the beauty enhancement space.

Would I do it?  Mmm…  probably not.  But that does NOT map into any kind of argument that my reluctance to pursue such a measure should morph into a prohibition on others pursing it.  That’s not to say I wouldn’t be curious to try a stent.  Just for a bit.  It’s just that I don’t really want to wind up in the ER from some kind of urological DIY disaster.

* There's a caveat here.  When @Ferix pursued this head on, he hit a urological wall so to speak.  It was the believe of his urologist that the type of surgery he was seeking would inevitably result in potentially catastrophic kidney damage.  I think we'd need to see that worked through.

Personally, I would avoid burdening the taxpayer with what was my decision also but there is an argument against this too.  Assuming that "continence dysphoria" eventually becomes defined as a disorder, then would not at this point the cost of "therapy" be considered treatment?

Additionally, imposing subjective values onto medicinal availability might be a thin end of a wedge here.  It's already been mooted that smokers should be somehow made to "pay" for the burden their habit has inflicted upon the healthcare system.  I've seen similar arguments for sufferers of Type 2 diabetes.

It's a slippery slope...

 

This. All this. 

Have been a bit nervous to respond in this thread as a trans woman, this kind of stuff just gives me the heeby-jeebies and in my experience leads to a quick slippery slope. 

Assuming we're talking about somebody that wants GCS (again, just as much variety in the trans community y'all, not everyone wants surgery or hormones though many do), what has been said about medical costs following a "by choice" surgery can certainly be said of GCS too...Like, one couuuld say "oh, hormones are optional you could always stop them" before surgery, and then they have that surgery and now those hormones are necessary (for example in MtF, orchiectomy or vaginoplasty can remove the testes). Then, one could say "oh, now you've burdened us with supplying your hormones the rest of your life gahhh". 

But guess what happens with folks that are happy and have their needs met? They're productive members of society, they contribute, grow, live their lives, touch the lives of others in a good way. I think what a lot of this "cost of X" stuff on the individual misses is the benefit of just being able to live your life and contribute to society as a whole.

Speaking of this personally...It removes the fog. I can do and be sooo much more than before, because I don't have this constant burden dragging me down. Yeah I have to take hormones every day and will have to for the rest of my life, yeah my body would be "mutilated" in the sense that I'll never reproduce normally...But I'm happy. Family and friends noticed how much more energy I had, how much more present I was. Coworkers noticed how much more productive I was. I started to aspire to do more in my free time than self-medicate to numb the pain, and contribute outside my sphere. It was all a net positive not just for me, but everyone else in my life I touched.

[kasarberang]

2 hours ago, oznl said:

Personally, I would avoid burdening the taxpayer with what was my decision also but there is an argument against this too.  Assuming that "continence dysphoria" eventually becomes defined as a disorder, then would not at this point the cost of "therapy" be considered treatment?

Additionally, imposing subjective values onto medicinal availability might be a thin end of a wedge here.  It's already been mooted that smokers should be somehow made to "pay" for the burden their habit has inflicted upon the healthcare system.  I've seen similar arguments for sufferers of Type 2 diabetes.

It's a slippery slope...

 

I get it, My brother once complained to me about walking by a 12year old or something, smoking a homemade bong made of plastic, and he said that he wouldn't want to pay for the brain damage they were going to cause themselves. That I personally disagree with. My issue specifically with "continence dysphoria" is there are non-surgical ways to achieve this, and I'd say the overwhelming majority of adults living functional lives would find life without continence to be not nearly as fun as they think.

 

If it wasn't for various monopolistic big pharma garbage that makes insulin so expensive, I'd probably agree with the diabetes argument, too. My dad had diabetes, he died of a heart attack most certainly caused by his unhealthy eating/drinking habits. He knew he was supposed to change his diet, he knew that continuing to eat large amounts of trashy junk food every day would shorten his life span, and he willingly chose to continue to do so.

I love my dad, his death was very tragic and caused basically my entire family's dynamic to crumble, but it's objectively his fault he died. And the only reason I believe he should have been covered for the medication he needed is because of the corrupt way the insulin industry actively works to prevent generics from being made.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

19 hours ago, Kawaharu said:

Being an adult baby and Incontinent, I understand that people want and wish they were incontinent and diaper dependent but what many people don't seem to understand is that being incontinent is not glamours or all sunshine. It's not all crack up to be and what many people don't seem to see that, being Diaper dependent and Incontinent requires alot of work. Many don't read the FINE print on what it means to be completely diaper dependent and incontinent. Many don't see how being incontinent changes your life and what being diapered does to you. Many think that being diapered is very easy but many don't see what kind of work it really entails.

For example, being an incontinent, I am kept in diapers permanently and 24/7/365. I can't leave diapers if I wanted to and I'm not even potty trained as well. I carry a diaper bag no matter where I go and having a diaper bag is a constant reminder to me and everyone around me that I am incontinent. Even in my car, I have a diaper bag with me all the time for emergency blowouts in my diaper. At them same time, I constantly have to deal with the threat of diaper rashes that are very painful. Even being incontinent, diaper changes in public is often very challenging because their isn't a clean place to change your soiled diaper and you have to preplan how you'll change your diapers when your outside of the house. Even being diapered, you have to get use to having people not understand what it means to be diaper dependent and yes, I have had people who never understand why I am incontinent. Which is why many people don't understand what it means to be Incontinent and what's required. On top of that many people who want to be incontinent don't see the true cost of being incontinent and being diapered. It ain't cheap to be incontinent and it can be costly.

It's why for me as an adult baby and incontinent, I have to deal with being kept in diapers and being diapered permanently. I make the most of being incontinent by being an adult baby to help deal with my incontinence and deal with being kept in diapers. Even my doctors know I am incontinent and it's on my medical records that I am incontinent and in diapers. It's why being an adult baby and incontinent, it's often stressful and lonely but I have to make the most of what I have. It's why it's not easy for anyone to want to be incontinent but if their is one thing I would say is think long and hard and the consequences of what you are getting into.

This is why I hold that Incontnent - Desires belongs in Our Lifestyle. I can just imagine what the majority of real IC's think when they encounter thi: "What are you TALKING about? Do you know what it is like to live with this on a daily basis?" and may find it a bit demeaning. Being legally blind, I get that feeling when I hear ophthamologists talk about persons who try to achieve that status to go on the dole or not have to work to earn a living. And when persons tell me how "lucky" I am, I just say "Yes, I know: Wanna see my drivers' license?". When one of the real obtuse ones says "yes", I tell them "I don't have one; I'm legally blind. Is that what you want?". If they still do not GET it, I tell them what it is like to have to make arrangements for transport 3 business days in advance, and then sometimes have it go wrong at a critical time, and all the work you have to do to make the connection. Then there are the places that you would like ot go and things you would like to do but no way since you do not have the point-to-point at-will transport

Given all of that the question arises: Should the government step in and ban the matter

Whethert a person wishes to or will harm themselves is no business of the governmentt as long as it does not ivolve force, coercion or fraud. However, since the government is involved in healthcare, the issue of "who is paying for it?" does come up. There is also the question of medical ethics and a surgeon's reputation qua ethics. In some places, purely private medical transactions are illegal. But if such is not the case then it is none of the government's business save only to enforce such legally binding terms that are part of the profession and voluntarily entered into by the surgeon. If it is determined that undergoing such surgery is, in itself, either mentally unheallthy or physically harmful, then "Do no harm" from the Hippocratic Oath may dictate that this kind of thing be banned, either under medical ethics or, if said Oath is legally binding, by the government

[Little Cub Pants]

2 hours ago, kasarberang said:

I get it, My brother once complained to me about walking by a 12year old or something, smoking a homemade bong made of plastic, and he said that he wouldn't want to pay for the brain damage they were going to cause themselves. That I personally disagree with. My issue specifically with "continence dysphoria" is there are non-surgical ways to achieve this, and I'd say the overwhelming majority of adults living functional lives would find life without continence to be not nearly as fun as they think.

 

If it wasn't for various monopolistic big pharma garbage that makes insulin so expensive, I'd probably agree with the diabetes argument, too. My dad had diabetes, he died of a heart attack most certainly caused by his unhealthy eating/drinking habits. He knew he was supposed to change his diet, he knew that continuing to eat large amounts of trashy junk food every day would shorten his life span, and he willingly chose to continue to do so.

I love my dad, his death was very tragic and caused basically my entire family's dynamic to crumble, but it's objectively his fault he died. And the only reason I believe he should have been covered for the medication he needed is because of the corrupt way the insulin industry actively works to prevent generics from being made.

How old was your dad when he died buddy??????

[doogles]

5 hours ago, oznl said:

Should people be allowed to use medical services (presumably at their own expense thus negating the "social cost" argument) to perform body hacks on their own body’s that are important to them?

I would say yes they are:  end of.  I would be fascinated to hear coherent arguments on why people should not have control of their own bodies.

 

3 hours ago, Kif said:

But guess what happens with folks that are happy and have their needs met? They're productive members of society, they contribute, grow, live their lives, touch the lives of others in a good way. I think what a lot of this "cost of X" stuff on the individual misses is the benefit of just being able to live your life and contribute to society as a whole.

 

2 hours ago, kasarberang said:

My dad had diabetes, he died of a heart attack most certainly caused by his unhealthy eating/drinking habits. He knew he was supposed to change his diet, he knew that continuing to eat large amounts of trashy junk food every day would shorten his life span, and he willingly chose to continue to do so.

 

These are some of the points that stood out to me most. Bodily autonomy, self actualization, and risk. We all want to be as happy as we can be, and not everyone's happiness looks the same. Some of them even involve living with continued "challenges".

 

As far as bodily autonomy goes, I'm 100% about people doing whatever they want with themselves or knowing partners. This means that if two consenting adults want to do something, then I don't see a lot of reason in stopping it. The most extreme case I can think of is dueling. Can I justify not letting them do that? If they know what they're getting into, who am I to stop them? Of course, I could be convinced that someone who initiates duels shouldn't be around people.

 

Self actualization is using your autonomy to get the most out of your life. @kif makes it even clearer that unhappy people are not just happier, they are also better members of society (though I think it's not a requirement that society benefit from performing its obligations). Moreover, people who are unhappy won't be productive or grow. "Fixing" these people is a double benefit for everyone. Life is so hard and full of pain that we need to find a way to say yes when there is a way to lift up others.

 

Risk is involved in getting to the end goals here. Maybe I enjoy life the most by eating pizza and getting drunk all the time. The reason this is frowned upon is that it can be dangerous for others, costly, and it challenges social custom. If there weren't any health consequences for eating junk food, for what reason would we decry it?

 

I don't know where I'm going with this, but a final thought: if getting a semi-permanent stent installed necessitates involving a healthcare professional, I don't think it's fair to expect they won't have some pushback based on their own ethics. On the other hand, lots of doctors oppose abortion, and I believe in the absolute right to choose.

[kasarberang]

6 hours ago, BabySpiderBoy said:

How old was your dad when he died buddy??????

He was in his mid 60s I think, I don't quite remember his age exactly, but he was an excellent dad.

4 hours ago, doogles said:

Risk is involved in getting to the end goals here. Maybe I enjoy life the most by eating pizza and getting drunk all the time. The reason this is frowned upon is that it can be dangerous for others, costly, and it challenges social custom. If there weren't any health consequences for eating junk food, for what reason would we decry it?

I 100% get my dad wanting to live his life in a way that he enjoyed in sacrifice for a shorter life span, I'd probably do the same if it came to certain things.

This is a topic I'll admit that I am not very well versed in, and if I were to go and think about it further I'd probably come up with a different view on the situation.

In general, I think it's far more complicated and probably largely varies on where in the world you are. In some place where healthcare is free for everyone, it makes no sense to exclude people from the benefit that they are born into just because they decided to take an optional surgery. If anything I'd say my view is almost exclusive to the U.S and it more so highlights our awful healthcare system.

That was a tangant, but hope I could get my general point across.

[doogles]

28 minutes ago, kasarberang said:

my view is almost exclusive to the U.S and it more so highlights our awful healthcare system

Absolutely zero argument on this point.

 

I think that even if we had a M4A situation, doctors would be generally unwilling to classify induced IC in the same class as gender reassignment/gender affirming surgery. It's far more akin to the more marginalized cosmetic surgeries.

[FretaBWet]

I voted no on this. My reasoning is that you do not need surgical procedures to be incontinent. All you really need is to be diapered 24/7 365 for the rest of your life. That is exactly what an incontinent person is going to be doing. You will have all the benefits that go along with being incontinent like leaks at inopportune times. Leaks at night that will force you to need to launder your bedding. You will get to sacrifice things you want to buy because buying diapers and wipes will be a higher priority than recreation, travel or enjoyment. You will get to fully enjoy the diaper rash that may occasionally pop up. What you are really seeking is a way to force yourself into this so you will not be able to change your mind or back out.

Ethically I can see why doctors wouldn't want to perform any procedure like this. They were trained to heal people. They take an oath to heal and not hurt people. Take a moment to put yourself in their shoes. Most doctors don't go through all that education just for the money. Nothing is as simplistic as that. They do it because it's satisfying at the end of the day to know they healed someone, or helped reduce their pain or helped blind people see or someone with mobility issues walk or do something they couldn't before. Do you really think that harming someone would make them feel good about what they do? It would be a very cynical doctor that would perform a procedure on a healthy person.

I'm not faulting you for your desire to be incontinent. I'm faulting you for a lack of commitment. Just be incontinent, you will eventually get there without having to compromise someone else's integrity to accomplish it.

Hugs,

Freta

[kasarberang]

47 minutes ago, FretaBWet said:

Most doctors don't go through all that education just for the money. Nothing is as simplistic as that. They do it because it's satisfying at the end of the day to know they healed someone, or helped reduce their pain or helped blind people see or someone with mobility issues walk or do something they couldn't before. Do you really think that harming someone would make them feel good about what they do?

You must have a very different experience with the medical industry than I do. I've absolutely had less of these negative experiences with Doctors than I have with nurses, but I've still had plenty of negative experiences with doctors.

I agree with everything else in your post, but personally disagree with this section, based on my personal experiences with the medical industry. Though, again I've had FAR more negative experiences with nurses than doctors. Probably because the commitment, time and effort it takes to become a nurse is significantly less than that to become a doctor and the amount of suffering you can inflict on someone as a nurse is most likely about on par if not greater than if you were a doctor.

[Little Cub Pants]

3 hours ago, kasarberang said:

I'd say my view is almost exclusive to the U.S and it more so highlights our awful healthcare system.

Yeah, I know you have very strong opinions on OUR healthcare system. And quite frankly, it DOES suck. But what do you think about Canada's health Care system, do you think it would be better or worse??????