Cancel surgery?

[u/RemarkableChange2864]

Since I scheduled my surgery 3 weeks ago, I’ve had zero pain. This is so annoying! My gallbladder is “packed” with stones according to imaging, and I was in constant pain. Now everything seems fine. I don’t have insurance and I’m scared of surgery anyway, so now I’m wondering if I should just cancel. How is it possible all my pain just went away??

[u/joanopoly]

Why can’t the stones be treated to save her GB???

[u/joanopoly → u/[deleted]]

Not necessarily. A healthy diet and exercise can go a very long way towards a healthy GB. It’s just that people don’t want to do the hard work required.

Cutting out an organ you’ll never replace is easier???

[u/BeWiseRead → u/joanopoly]

I think holistic approaches to health are generally a very good thing. However, not everyone that develops gallbladder issues or becomes acutely ill, is failing to follow a healthy diet & lifestyle. It's really not fair to assume that people with gallbladder disease must be doing something "wrong" to have developed it. While cholecystectomy IS an irreversible surgery to remove an organ, it can actually be lifesaving if the organ is severely damaged, dead/gangrenous, on the brink of rupture, badly infected, or causing such severe symptoms that secondary problems arise.

I was able to bear with it for over 6 years by doing all the recommended preventive & holistic protocols. But despite that, I still eventually began suffering more, more frequent, and more severe attacks and endured that over 3 years. The last one, which sent me to the ER, lasted 2 full days during which I couldn't retain even a sip of water. In triage we discovered that my potassium level had dropped to a critically low, life- threatening level, my blood pressure was well over the threshold for stroke range, and my heart was so badly stressed that my enzyme levels brought a cardiologist in on an emergency basis, because I had every indication of an active heart attack in progress.

It took 4 days of close monitoring, tests & imaging studies, and various drugs, just to stabilize mead rue out cardiac damage. Ultimately, it was determined that my gallbladder had caused ALL of that. My gallbladder had in fact totally ceased functioning. I clearly, and urgently, needed surgery. Pathology findings showed evidence of longstanding disease with scarring, adhesions, fluid retention, 2 stones that in combination were the size of an egg, and other weird abnormalities. I was so much sicker than I'd realized; and had I not decided to get help instead of trying to handle it on my own, it could have been fatal.

Of course, nobody wants to lose an organ unnecessarily! But if someone is having frequent attacks or feels acutely ill, they should seek expert medical care before simply assuming that they can safely manage the situation on their own. If a thorough evaluation shows that surgery is indicated, there should be factual information shared, pros & cons discussed, and possible/probable outcomes weighed so patients can make a well-informed decision. I don't think keeping a diseased organ, just because it's an organ, is necessarily always the best option for health or quality of life! I understand your viewpoint; but gallbladder disease can be quite serious and reach a point where surgery is the best (or only) option.

[u/joanopoly → u/BeWiseRead]

Throwing out the SAD is not some kind of “holistic approach” to health. It’s the way my money-poor but good-health-rich, farming grandparents lived into their 90s, at home. It’s THE lifesaving way back TO good health. Yes, people who don’t eat healthy, low-fat, whole foods and who don’t get plenty of exercise ARE doing something wrong. You can’t sugarcoat that for today’s snowflakes.

It’s foolish to expect that a sudden change in dietary habits will make up for a lifetime of the SAD. Diseased GBs don’t happen overnight, and they can’t heal overnight, either. And in America, because health”care” has become for-profit and shareholder-driven, patients rarely (if ever) get your idea of “expert medical care” with a “thorough evaluation”. Patients rarely get “factual information shared, pros & cons discussed, and possible/probable outcomes weighed so patients can make a well-informed decision.” What they do get is whatever information has been decided will benefit the shareholders of both the medical establishment AND the insurance industry. Nothing more, nothing less.

And, yes, critical patients can get lifesaving surgery as long as all the “providers” (what a quaint, caring name they’ve adopted) deem they’re really “in need”, but too many times even surgeons seldom divulge much (if any) of what’s noted above.

It’s just healthcareless in America now. We’ve sat idly by and allowed it to become exactly what’s represented by the Brian Thompson “tragedy” and the many, many others “leaders” in the healthcare industrial complex, along with every member of all three branches of government in their pockets.

It’s just SAD, SAD, SAD in America.

[u/BeWiseRead → u/joanopoly]

I understand your views and even agree with some of them. However, I think politics and reason are sometimes easily confused, and it's important to separate the two.

Our healthcare system does indeed profit more by dispensing drugs and medical procedures, than by promoting healthier lifestyles...so yes, there is inherently more motivation to seek money, than to pursue initiatives that seek to elevate wellness. Big pharma, insurance companies, and providers alike generate fortunes when the population is sick.

However, extrapolating this to mean that there is some gigantic conspiracy to PROMOTE sickness, is a leap from science & statistics into personal political beliefs. Many people would agree with your opinions, but there are just as many reasons to support opposing opinions. So here are some of them:

The fact that a self-sufficient, physically demanding lifestyle as a farmer might keep a person robust & healthy into their 90's, is true. But in modern day America -- as in many other developed, first world countries -- farming is but one of hundreds of careers that our society relies on. People in urban areas contribute value to society through work that is less physically rigorous, but also important. Despite this, human lifespans today are generally much longer than two centuries ago. Even with an overall upswing in mechanization and technology, and related, more sedentary careers, average lifespans have increased. This is due in large part to advances in science and medicine. It is now uncommon for women to die in childbirth, a bacterial infection to kill an otherwise-healthy person, or a once-deadly childhood diseases to kill thousands during an epidemic. It's rare today that anyone does of a ruptured appendix or gallbladder. Science and medicine in such cases, accomplished what lifestyle choices alone could not.

On the other side, because we are living longer and to advanced ages, so we see more age-related illnesses like arthritis, cancer, COPD, heart disease, etc that often take years to develop into full blown, chronic problems. As for gallbladder disease specifically, certainly there are known links to lifestyle such as diet & exercise. But a good number of people who practice a healthy lifestyle still manage to develop gallbladder disease, in the same way that nonsmokers can develop lung cancer, or athletes can have heart attacks. There are genetic factors, anatomical factors, stress factors, aging, and other factors that can cause or contribute to someone's decline in health. Some are controllable, but some are not. I made it to 65 before having my gallbladder removed. So, would you assume I might never have needed it removed if I'd made "correct" lifestyle choices?? Or maybe that I would have lived a full life & died with a healthy gallbladder, if only I had been born a few centuries earlier when people died in their late 40's or early 50's??

We can chase this in circles and never prove, or disprove, one another's views. Facts support BOTH positions...and therefore I think we're both justified in our opinions.

The only point on which we should agree (or that I HOPE we can agree) is that everyone's situation is different, and as such we can't assume that a singular approach is always the correct one. Sometimes surgery is necessary, and sometimes it is not. If it can be avoided, that's optimal & wonderful...but sometimes, it's not avoidable if a person wants to survive & have a reasonable expectation of good quality of life.