Surgery to cause incontinence? What if it becomes "normalized"?

[ThomasInWVa]

First, this is a non-political post. Really. 

An idea/question started to bubble up a couple weeks ago with all the talk of gender affirming treatment and surgery for even young children. That's some pretty strong an permanent stuff. 

My question is that if such surgeries are being normalized, what about surgeries and treatments that would render someone temporary or permanently incontinent?

Yeas ago when I had issue related to severe retention I found data on using botox to relax the bladder sphincter muscle. But it was only a research study and not an approved treatment. There was also a type of stent (Urolume?) under study could be permanently used to keep the urinary sphincter open. After a while my condition changed and bladder retention was no longer a problem and the idea was moot. 

But with the recent normalization of gender surgeries and overall acceptance of "unusual" lifestyles and normalization of what used to be private kinks, I'm wondering if surgeries to create incontinence for a more real AB experience would also be normalized.

If this does become accepted, how much interest would there be in a temporary (as in 6-12 months) or permanent treatment or surgery to render someone urinary and/or bowel incontinent?

Edited July 3, 2022 by ThomasInWVa
Corrected title.

[AbabeBill]

I think doctors, or surgeons in general, are reluctant to preform any type of procedure, which is not necessary unless, there is a real underlying medical condition, and a need to correct, or fix it. For instance, if you were to consult with a doctor, they will want a reason, and they would be reluctant, if you were to say, it’s not medical, I just want this procedure. They would want to know exactly why, and if not medically necessary, they would turn you down. They would also want to know, how would you pay for such a procedure? No insurance would pay for it. 
As for gender affirming treatment and surgery, that is somewhat a different subject, and I don’t think you could stand on them being the same in principle, to legitimize another type of surgery or procedure. 
In short, doctors take an oath, not to do harm, and that includes procedures that are not medically necessary. Most doctors, are afraid of getting near any grey areas also. 
 

[oznl]

It was actually tried.  Have a look at this thread over in the "Incontinence Desires" forum.

It might be a topic better explored in that forum.  It does tend to attract controversy (even there).

[deewet]

One of the methods that I would approve of this being used would be as a "punishment" after being found guilty of breaking handicap laws again, or after several typical punishments such as fines or loss of some driving rights.  For someone who has no respect for the privileges we give to handicap'd people, they should be forced to experience some of the handicaps those folks deal with daily, including incontinence and maybe some limited mobility.

Not an original idea though, as I have read stories about just this thing and I believe that would be perfectly fine especially for those who have no respect for others in that position and ignore the rules to help them out a bit!  A year in diaper confinement would be perfect, especially if they are required to use a cane to walk as well

[ThomasInWVa]

21 hours ago, oznl said:

It was actually tried.  Have a look at this thread over in the "Incontinence Desires" forum.

Thanks. I checked it out.  

[Dubious]

Already exist medical stents that can be inserted without surgery.

[BabyJune]

CAVEAT: Be careful what you wish for.

[Moochie]

I do not want to become incontinent. The joy of volitionally wetting and/or messing my diaper is far better than incontinent wetting or messing. By wetting or pooping my diaper consciously, I get to enjoy all the emotional and physical sensations before, during, and after I have wet or soiled my diaper.

[WehavePi314]

Would the Hippocratic Oath allow for that?   Seems like it would fall on the side of causing a patient harm.

[Alyeskabird]

I find it hard to come to a single conclusion on this sort of topic. babys/young children do not wet constantly, what they lack is the control to not give in at the first desire to wet, or mess. Most of the incontanice I have heard of is more or less simular, to verious levels. Using a stent or something else means you end up with a constant dribble, not the same thiing, though your diaper will thank you, a lot more time to wick wetness away.

In a way there body goes time to poop, and they are like, yay! lets poop!

Personaly I am, just fine just wearing my diapers, and leting it happen when the urge hits. Heck, I tend to get so comfortable with the idea,  that I have very little control when I am diapered. WHen the urge hits, its not the, hey yah might wanna think about hitting the bathroom in the next hour or so, its more a Oh pee now! 30 seconds? Too long, peeing now anyways.

Kinda weird the first time I was diapered and unable to make it to the bathroom.

 

[diapered charles]

On 7/7/2022 at 3:03 PM, WehavePi314 said:

Would the Hippocratic Oath allow for that?   Seems like it would fall on the side of causing a patient harm.

The Hippocratic Oath would allow it ONLY if there was good reason to believe the patient may harm themselves trying to achieve that goal. There are people out there that have huge desires to be disabled and will go to extreme lengths to get there. In those cases, medical professionals have helped them achieve disability in order for it to be done safely. It is probably even harder to get to happen than those that transition, but it has happened. I imagine that could apply to extreme cases of people wanting to be incontinent. 

[Dubious]

On 7/7/2022 at 9:03 PM, WehavePi314 said:

Would the Hippocratic Oath allow for that?   Seems like it would fall on the side of causing a patient harm.

They are performing circumcisions and sex changes. 

[dlnoir]

If the Hippocratic oath were only to cover the physical side of healthcare indeed no intervention would be allowed. But the Hippocratic oath also applies for mental health care. If a person really suffers and it has been professionally determined that this is case the patient should be helped for his mental wellbeing. Healthcare is more than just taking care of a humans body, otherwise, no psychologist  or psychiatrists were needed. And I think we all know more and more people reach out nowadays for whatever reason for mental healthcare.

[nappylover78]

Wouldn't want to be incontinent long-term, but wish there was a way to safely experience it for a day or so!

[Alyeskabird]

Actualy theres started to be a lot of debate about cercomcision, as it is primarily a religious practice, not medical. In most cases it does not actualy help anything at all. What it is known for is being, one, a religious thing, two, known to decrease sensativity and enjoyment of sex. (Yes, thats an actual  thing, or at lest it was known as a thing t he last time I looked it up.) But again, in allmost all cases, inspite of claims overwise, its based allmost compleatly apon religion. Personaly I think it should be banned, or at lest recognized as just being a thing that people do because of religion.

How many perents would not have had it done to there children if not for some doctor following religious practices telling the perents that it had health benifits. Course, one of thoes health benifets was that the child would be less likely to masterbate.

[ozziebee]

My view on the idea of medically-induced U-IC / F-IC via surgery is that it should be made available to those who would qualify for it, in much the same way as reassignment surgery is made available. Access should be granted after a patient has been under the care of a psychiatrist, have been living the life, with the right support. Maybe do a period of time beforehand of using a stent or similar non-permanent system, before surgery is granted. 

[zzyzx]

17 hours ago, Alyeskabird said:

Course, one of thoes health benifets was that the child would be less likely to masterbate.

@Alyeskabird And I can confirm that that claim is a lie...  At least for me.....

[Alyeskabird]

Very much a religious thing, masterbation is evil and sends you to hell, thus cut the boys to help save there souls.

On the medical side of  things, its a bit harder to say one way or another. I understand the desire to go to the doc, and suddenly boom you get what you want, and have no control. The problem I see with it is how open for abuse such a thing can be. ALso to be fair, very few docs would want to touch something like that, not because of the do no harm thing, but, rather more so, because of the liability issues.  Takes very little for a doc to get screwed by someone desiding that they do not like what they demanded to be done to themselves and sueing the doctor. I sudjest looking up breast implants, and the lawsuits that have been associated with that over the years.

It is also very posable to self unpotty train. Its a bit of a pain, but, it is very posable. Heck, from personal experence I know it works.  Oh still got a ways to go, as I can't easily pee when laying down yet, but, thats more psycological than anything else. In a way I am rather glad I have not lost more control, but, I do not want to have a true lack of control, only a lack of control when I am in a diaper.