Presently, chemicals are offered (side effects bad), and surgery, cutting into prostate. But stent could be simpler (cheaper than pills) and less damaging(?)
2007-01-01 03:45:07 · 4 answers · asked by sadman 1 in Health ➔ Men's Health
No, cause if a stint was planted you would have no control or your pee output. You need muscle control to control your pee, which the prostrate and splinter provides.
2007-01-02 05:55:47 · answer #1 · answered by Lee 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ah yes, modern medicine, with it's reliance on drugs with lots of nasty side effects, endless tests to try to obtain a diagnosis of the common cold or other obvious illness and plenty of surgical procedures that may or may not actually give a person a long and happy life afterward.
Of course all that technology and all those procedures they have seem to have removed common sense from the equation. Fat be it for them to actually look at a problem in a simple way and try the safe, easy route first. No, they have to cut you open and dope you up and put you through all sorts of highly technical processes to ensure that cold isn't actually a case of the common flu.
Yes, I know that wasn;t a direct awnswer to yoru question but it is in fact the answer. So next time you go to a doctor whit a complaint, see just how many medical dollars he or she will spend jus tto tell you to go home, take 2 aspirin, drink lots of fluids and get plenty of sleep.
2007-01-01 04:24:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The prostate is a valve, if you put a stint in it it will not shut off. Have you ever heard of catheterization?
2007-01-01 06:13:11 · answer #3 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only side effect I got from proscar is nice thick hair that women love.
Good Luck!
2007-01-01 17:13:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋