Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Responding to an Anti-Anti-Vasectomy Site

Here's a letter I wrote to an anti-anti-vasectomy site, responding to this site, that I doubt will see print, so posting it here instead.

Hey, I doubt my email will see print, but I'll write and send it anyway just for the therapeutic effect it gives me.

Bottom line: seriously, the entirety of your 'response' site sounds like pharmaceutical propaganda, but in this case, Big Urology propaganda. My unfounded-yet-likely suspicion: enough prominent urologists are talking together one day over beers, lamenting their profits affected by Kevin Hauber's site (or perhaps doctors find themselves getting far too many pestering questions thanks to his site) so -- enough is enough! -- break out the propaganda machine! Pool funds and get a professional, "medical sounding"-response site together, and get it out there, with the same efficiency of the vaccine industry getting the counter-autism propaganda online (only the top pro-vax articles seem to get the top search engine hits!) Urologists scramble, assemble funds, perhaps a call made to an ivy-league buddy or two, and the big money comes rolling in for a professional-looking, objective-sounding website ("be sure to include text like 'no book to sell' so that no one will suspect any ulterior motives to this site...")

But seriously, the polish used to refute Kevin's documentation seemed strained: using tactics such as marginalize the studies that support chronic issues and dismiss everything else in a cheerful ad homonym wave, and do what you can to steer around and away from the chronic page issue. Make his site as fringy and anecdotal-sounding as possible. Let's stamp out his documentation and research with our impressive-sounding, big-budget research. Chronic pain.... let's make this sound minor, dismissive, something to elicit the collective shrugging of shoulders, and let's watch the business come flooding back in again. Besides, EVERYONE takes a pain-killer when they first wake up, right, so why not someone damaged by a vasectomy?

If you think about it, vasectomies probably mark the singular reason a man would go to a urologist in the first place. So if there is skepticism of the safety of this procedure, you take away from that business, and what else would there be to give urologists business? A periodic, rare health issue with the reproductive organ? No, I see the big picture going on here. A well-played counter-move by a not-so-well-meaning group of urologists who need business.

But for what it's worth, frankly, it's not just Kevin Hauber's site that has dissuaded me from ever getting my manhood components mutilated, nor does it have anything specifically to do with philosophical or religious purposes. For me, it's all about cold, clear reason. If there is an elective operation that could potentially cause, no matter how small the likelihood, chronic pain in the region of my manhood, for every day for the rest of my natural life, then there is no way on earth would I get this operation. The other side-effect stuff that Kevin lists, that the anti-anti-vasectomy folks like trashing the research of, is secondary: I'm more concerned about the lingering, ongoing pain. My heart goes out to any guy who got the operation, experienced endless pain as a result, then when questioning the doctor received little more than a pain-killer prescription and a shrug. If there's the prospect of pain, then there's no possibility of getting this operation for me. At least with a barrier, I don't have to fear living each day with pain for the rest of my life.

Rational Neo

No comments:

Post a Comment