Reckless and Dangerous advice from Dr. Vorstman

The quote below from Dr. Vorstman is not only insulting to all the men that claim otherwise from personal experience, but also very dangerous in that it intends to scare men facing a horrific time in their life. What he states is an absolute lie. There are tons of men, including myself, who have no issues whatsoever or very little issues at all with both incontinence and ED after undergoing robotic surgery for prostate removal. The many of us in this category know that he is either grossly misinformed, which is a shame considering he supposedely advises men in need, or simply lying for his persoanl reasons/bias.

I would gladly personally undergo any tests this man would call for to prove him wrong. I'm serious, I now it sounds bizarre, but let him monitor me in his office.

Prostate cancer and robotic surgery (if chosen) are not the end of life, urinary control, or sexual potence. Men facing this cancer need to understand that. I have met many here, many from Yana and certainly understand my own results from this surgery.

The truth is that for a number of known circumstances the results will differ among men. What he says is true of some men, but definitely not all men and probably not most men. Again, broken down into categories, probably very few men in a category such as mine... 40 years old, healthy, fit, sexually healthy prior to surgery.

This doctor should educate himself and advise his patients of what these circumstances might be.

Not looking for a pissing contest, only posting this as a form of testimony for those men that come along looking for actual information. This site has nothing to do with the opionion I have expressed here.

ps - no shortening of the penis at all, that's another scare tactic.

Below is Vorstman's horrible and dangerous misinformed quote.



"6. My friend, who underwent radical surgery, says he is fine and he has no complications.

Dr. Vorstman: I'm sure that there are some men who claim no complications following radical surgery/robotics for their prostate cancer. However, in addition to shortening of the penis and a high rate of residual cancer in men after radical surgery/robotics, many men are often too embarrassed to admit to post operative urinary leakage and issues of a sexual nature. These quality of life issues clearly underscore the fact that surgery/robotics is no panacea for prostate cancer treatment. Surgeons as well as marketers continue to promote robotic technology for radical prostatectomy by a creative spin, using such terms as "advanced", "minimally invasive", and "superior outcomes." The sad truth is that prostate cancer surgery is solely responsible for the worldwide increase in urinary incontinence and impotence but without the benefit of curative life extension."

Regarding what I consider this Doctor's motive for stating this, see below.

"He works to promote the acceptance and use of minimally invasive treatment options such as HIFU and Cryoablation for localized prostate cancer in appropriately selected men. In that regard, he has developed a Center for Minimally Invasive Treatment Options for localized prostate cancer.

In addition, Dr. Vorstman has developed a leading urology practice, Florida Urological Associates, PA, was instrumental in developing the Coral Springs Surgical Center and developed websites highlighting prostate cancer issues including"

Post Edited (davidg) : 2/1/2012 1:46:23 AM (GMT-7)

Yep, I suppose this thread will soon be locked down also, but I hate to leave the impression with newly-diagnosed men who may read these threads that the top 10 list offered by Dr. Vorstman is a good one. 

I don't think it is.

I'm particularly appalled by his statement:  " In fact, this one surgery is associated more with permanent complications (especially incontinence and impotence) than probably any other operation ever performed on humans."

When my R. N. wife saw that comment, she about had a fit.  Just for example, consider the debilitating and disfiguring results of a radical mastectomy. Or the uncertain results of brain surgery to alleviate the ravages of brain cancer.  Or removal of a lung, or a portion of a long; or of a section of colon, resulting in lifelong use of a colostomy bag.  Ridiculous.

Then, in number 10 on his list, speaking of the possibility of a curative outcome which will allow a man to live a "normal" life, Dr. Vorstman says, "It's a naive dream propagated through marketers and pursued by many surgeons."  What a cynical and outrageous statement that is!

The list contains a kernel of truth here and there, but it's basically a "hit job" on radical surgery/robotics, and "loaded" to make surgery look like something evil and malicious. 

Just my thoughts.

 

A discussion of urinary incontinance = "a pissing contest" I LOVE IT.

It is a tragedy of the world that no one knows what he doesn’t know, and the less a man knows, the more sure he is that he knows everything. -Joyce Carey    (thank you Terry Herbert for providing that quote)  

davidg:

the owner of this site does not want or like for members here to trash talk any doctor or medical professional by name. you have clearly violated this. i would expecct the moderator(s) to either lock down or erase this entire thread.

you also show contempt openly toward the moderators by starting a new thread that is basically the same one that was locked down yesterday.

you should look up the word "libel" in the dictionary, your trashing of this doctor (right or wrong), could be used as evidence as libel and slander if the doctor you named chose so, putting the owner of this site in a dangeours legal situation

and by your posting this (true or not true), you knew perfectly well that it would be the bait to cause as you put it, "another pissing contest".

i don't think you used very good judgement on many fronts, in starting this thread.

david in sc

gleason, it's not "we", it's some that dumped on bob cape. i made a point of defending his right to post what he posted right until the end of the thread before it was locked down.

david in sc

We are asked not to make the kind of negative and accusatory statements that are in this thread.

I locked the other one not because of the content of the linked article (I did not and still do not like it, but that is not relative to my role in this post), but because of the vitriolic comments, and the association to another doctor that was neither made nor implied in the article.

I'm locking this one for the same sort of negative and accusatory statements. I consider this "flaming" of the doctor in question. It could have consequences for the owner of the site.