Well, re the non-essentialness of the prostate, I could point to the men who’ve managed to father babies after prostatectomy - should I post a list of the kiddies’ names? ;). Prostatic secretions have been linked to enhanced performance of sperm and this may have a role in some cases of infertility, but the evidence is less than overwhelming so far.
As I mentioned, we can do without our appendices very nicely. While the spleen and gallbladder have defined functions, there are thousands if not millions of people in this country getting along just fine without them, so they can be referred to as non-essential.
Judging from responses to this thread, it is also evident that certain humans exist without using more than a tiny fraction of their brains.
Q:Judging from responses to this thread, it is also evident that certain humans exist without using more than a tiny fraction of their brains.
“Overcapacity” is common in nature. 95% of the time we do not use our hearts, lungs or livers at the full capacity either.
The organs above are “vital”. Spleens, appendices, limbs, prostates are not needed for everyday life. A human can live if the thymus, the spleen, the prostate were removed, even on day one. They still, probably, will be able to fight infection and have babies. Probably, not as good, though, as normal people. These (and other organs) are present in man and other animals. I guess, on purpose. We do not know always what is the purpose. But in millions of years of evolution these organs did not dissapear. Why?
Perhaps, for the same reason as we still have hair and nails. But perhaps, just perhaps, they are needed for something more important than to keep us busy to do hair-cutting and nail clipping. Remember the thymus, spleen, lymph glands stories? None was “needed” 50 years ago.
The galdbladder is a good example. Life is possible (with occasional indigestion and abdominal pain) without it. So, while it’s true that it is “non-essential” (in that I can survive without it, like without many other organs), I’d like to keep it.
**Q: It outranks even the appendix in terms of being ineffectual and potentially deadly.{/b} You can compile a laundry list of “potentially deadly” organs and get them yanked one by one. My chances of dying without cancer are still greater than dying with; I won’t be terribly upset if I get a slowly growing prostate cancer at the age of 80 (if I live that long).
Prostate cancer is very uncommon before age 60. I personally do not consider this old, but the doctor was probably just trying to be folksy or flippant, which is unfortunate.
The Canadian governmental and professional bodies responsible for screening recommendations have mixed views regarding PSA. The Canadian Family Physicians regard screening by rectal exam important, but do not think PSA by itself is worth doing if the rectal is negative. The Canadian government funds many things, but most patients are on their own to cover the $10 US cost of the PSA test. Urologists think the test is more important. It is generally agreed that the change in PSA over time (“the PSA velocity”) is more important than a single elevated number.
I’d like to apologize for a small but important error I made in my above statement. Prostate cancer has the second highest mortality of male cancers, not the fourth as I implied. Lung cancer is still the number one killer, and breast cancer kills more often than prostate cancer. In some populations, prostate cancer is the fourth highest cause of mortality, which is probably what I half-remembered. Cancer treatment changes so quickly and is so specialized that most doctors don’t know enough about it; and I guess that includes me – though cancer statistics are hard to remember since every cancer is made important with a statement along the lines of “this is the third most common gastrointestinal cancer in females under the age of 40” and it can be difficult to keep these platitudes straight. Nevertheless, I would urge all men over 50 (40 according to some American bodies, i.e. college of radiology, urology) to have a yearly rectal exam. First stage prostatism is easy to treat, but if it is discovered late, the chance for cure after metastasis can be quite small.
Sorry about that. It may have been an escalation from the sneering of the previous poster (I did give him credit for using a fraction of brain power rather than none at all).
Actually, Peace, you nearly hit it dead on. I am a professor and M.D., and I lecture on this subject to medical students. I support you in your goal of retaining all your organs, vital or not (I myself still retain the original factory parts and hope to keep it that way).
I think that Dr. P. meant to refer to the benevolent outlook in early prostate cancer rather than first stage prostatism. “Prostatism”, at least in the U.S. is a term for the symptoms that may accompany any kind of prostatic enlargement (i.e. urinary frequency and urgency) and much more often is due to benign hyperplasia rather than to cancer.
Q:Actually, Peace, you nearly hit it dead on.
Why “nearly”? I can recognize that arrogant “I-know-the-truth” style a mile away. After laying down the peremptory truth to young students for years, you have no humility left and speak in aphorisms. I saw it before.
I am a professor and M.D., and I lecture on this subject to medical students
You see Jack, how deep it got. You adore yourself so much, that you rave about lecturing on the subject of being a professor and [an]M.D. Well, keep in mind, that some of us here are not your students. We are eager to get information on the subjects you may know better, but state clearly what is common knowledge (or lack of it) and what is you opinion (or lack of it). So, SDoppers can keep a prospective, STS.
I’ve found references on the Net to prostate glands and/or prostate cancer in non-human primates, horses, mice, rats, dogs and cats. Seems reasonable to speculate that all mammals have them, but I don’t have proof.
Sure. I was trying to clarify what’s meant when docs use the term “prostatism”, which is defined as symptoms related to prostatic enlargement, typically in a benign setting. Infections usually don’t result in significant enlargement of the prostate.
Although prostatism does indeed refer to the symptom complex, a bastardized version of the term to include diseased of the prostate including prostatitis, BPH and carcinoma is sometimes used here. Since the early stage of all of these conditions is benign, what I said was true. Your rewording is a little more precise, but I was trying to encourage people to get screening – and consider this more important.
If you are an expert on the prostate, as you imply, you should pat yourself on the back for knowing more about it than others on the board. That makes you quite special, and puts you in a special position to offer a public service. Perhaps you could encouage people to get screening too?
Uniball…obviously you have homosexual tendancies…or think all us fella’s do!
hehe…went to the doc. the other day…and he stuck 2 fingers up my date to check my prostate. on enquiry why he didn’t stick to the normal practise, he commented that it was the cheapest way of getting a second opinion!
Nah…seriously tho, the prostate just secretes a fluid which is added to the semen as it passes through it on the way out of the body during ejaculation…sorta like a base or medium for it. Makes it look like there’s a lot more than there really is…or something!
Adolph, one thing missing from your post is that the digital exam isn’t all that accurate. What was it? Only 40% accurate? The PSA test is 52% I think. I forgot. However, using two fingers doesn’t get you 80% accurency.
I suppose you masturbate with your own hand, right? Well, does that makes you gay? I don’t think so. And if you’re limber like me, you may be able to suck your own peewee. It’s a gay thing? I don’t think so! The prostate is mine, the fingers are mine, and I’m NOT turned on by the sight of male hairy buns, so there.
