Take out the stones or gallbladder

[Guest guest]

I don't totally agree with the doctors that say the gallbladder is

not very necessary.

<..Note; if this was drastically a negative effect to the digestive

<system, they would surely just remove the stone and not the

<gallbladder. They feel that if in 50% of the cases the stones will

<return no matter what kind of dietary changes you make, and because

<only 5% of the people removing the gb have some mild problems later,

<the best option for them is to remove the entire thing....>

That is assuming that the doctors remove only organs of little or no

use.

Sorry, but it's a well known fact that many women have their uteruses

removed for little reason - especially if they " have their family " .

It's been proven that a uterus produces hormones and has a cleansing

effect on the body whem monthly menses continue.

What about appendixes, tonsils and adnoids?

So many of these things are considered useless and therefore

disposable. Who makes these decisions? Do women decide to remove

uteruses that may be salvageable? (by the way, it is advised to do

hysterectomy only for cancer and how many women have it removed " just

for fibroids " ).....or do doctors decide that an easier, less

complicated surgery, will gain the same financial rewards or even

more $$$$?

I guess that I'm getting carried away, but I feel that the stones

could be removed, but the doctors find it:

1)financially less appealing than total removal

2)Shy away from removal of stones and that repairing the incision in

the gallbladder as too time consuming and tedious and more prone to

accidents.

Mind you ------that is my humble opinion.

~Suzanne