I assume this is some sort of typo, but I can’t figure out what was meant. Died slightly?
A part of the colon died, but not the child? In the link to real-life Problems with constipated intestines/ colon, one disease is described where part of the intestine is “dead” (not moving) and how today, surgery can cut out that part and sew the working parts together.
But since the whole “blog Story” sounds made up, who knows what was meant.
I guess “died slightly” does refer to a portion of the colon and nerve cells dying - like in Hirschsprung’s Disease.
Except with HD the nerve cells just arent there, or are dead, from birth. Usually. The “dead” section is removed and they pullthrough yo reconnect or make a pouch to treat HD.
I spoke to a gastroenterologist the other day, and I made a jokey remark about “rather more blood than is normal from that area,” and he stopped me and said “*No *blood is normal. if there is *any *blood, something is wrong. Maybe not serious, but not ‘normal.’”
Well, I found the original blog stories finally.
Warning, the first one has a picture of some gloved people holding what appears to be some gangrenous bowel in their hands, and the third one has some sort of meat on a table. The second one has some sort of poverty child photo. Might be NSFW in some workplaces.
http://spydrasweb.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/gut-instinct.htm
The last ones are mostly some legal drama and complaining, I didn’t really have time or interest to read the entirety of it.
Also, doesn’t the bowel/guts sometimes die when occasionally die off when you block the blood flow? I heard this is actually quite common with older people, and most surgeons just close up the skin and wait for them to die.
I’m finding it hard to take this seriously.
Not when “you” block blood flow. But when blood flow to a portion of the guts becomes blocked for whatever reason that’s bad. See Intestinal ischemia - Wikipedia
I suspect that in more rural areas by the time the patient is open on the surgical table at a major hospital it’s been a long time since blood flow failed and their prognosis is now very poor. For somebody much closer = quicker to medical help the outcomes are better.
Medicine in the Outback and medicine in the capital city are two very different experiences for both patient and provider.
Or maybe the patients just leave it a really long time before seeking medical aid, since they’re elderly and probably don’t really care, don’t have the mental capacity of really caring, or just think it’s nothing and they’re ill because they’re old and unhealthy. I mean even in many of those cases they usually just get piles of laxatives, IV fluids, electronic scans, antibiotics until they either die or a family members gives the greenlight for exploratory surgery.
Say what now? I think elderly care. I can also tell you from personal experience that problems in the gut hurt like a bitch, so it’s not really something you can ignore. Finally, I don’t think that the elderly aren’t treated and are just sent home with pills. If they can be diagnosed, and they are physically able to withstand surgery and/or they consent to surgery, then they will get surgery. There’s no arbitrary age at which you don’t receive care to save your life anymore.
It still is Not Normal and should be mentioned to your doctor. Most people don’t have blood in their stool, little or lots.
For a while I had a little blood when I wiped. It was fresh, bright red, and there wasn’t much of it. I told my doctor. She assured me it was just hemorrhoids, and suggested I try some cream. It eventually cleared up.
Normal? I suppose not. But common, boring, and not terribly dangerous.
“You know nothing, [del]Jon Snow[/del] dude robert”
Seriously, this is unmitigated nonsense at the scrape-it-off-the-bottom-of-your-shoe level of your knowledge of internal plumbing.
There is an enormous difference between blood on toilet paper and blood in the stool. The former is common and likely a hemorrhoid. The latter is extremely rare and needs a doctor’s attention quickly.