[ryanklee]

Sorry for your condition, but I think it'd be a big mistake for anyone to listen to your experience and make any decisions based on it.

Looks like something like 1-2% rate of hematoma and the same for PVPS when performed by experienced physicians.[0]

Edit: These are rates for minor complications. The incident rate for major ones requiring post-procedure interventions is 0.1%.

[0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8255399/#sec-3t...

[actuator]

IMO 1-2% rate is quite high for an unnecessary procedure, I am glad OP is talking about it to make more people aware of this.

[BrandoElFollito]

What do you mean by "unnecessary"?

Unnecessary to be healthy, or unnecessary as in "something you do you should not" (say, like injections in the lips to make them bigger)?

[actuator]

Unnecessary to be healthy. If someone doesn't want a kid, there are other forms of birth protection available which can be relied on and they are quite effective if used as advised.

[david38]

You must be joking? By your argument I should drink and drive because the probability of ending up in a wheelchair is very low, cars being so safe.

Suppose this condition came about by a disease. Suppose transmission rates were 2%. Would you have unprotected sex with someone on a 2% chance of getting this condition? Assume that it was guaranteed the girl was otherwise without infection and not fertile.

[ryanklee]

These are rates for minor complications. The incident rate for major ones requiring post-procedure interventions is 0.1%.

[tivert]

> These are rates for minor complications. The incident rate for major ones requiring post-procedure interventions is 0.1%.

What's the difference between a "minor complication" and a "major" one? Where does "life long pain and discomfort" fall? The word "requiring" seems a bit weasely (e.g. you could survive your life-long pain without surgery, so it's not required, therefor your complication is "minor" even though it significantly decreases your quality of life).

[ryanklee]

It's not weaselly. The study indicates it's chronic pain that reduced QoL.

Unbelievable pushback about vasectomy value prop, here. It's a crazy common procedure. If rates of complications that mattered were high enough to matter, we'd all know about it via high rates of anecdata indicating the risk.

[6D794163636F756]

Vasectomies have a lower chance of serious complication than birth control but perish the thought that men should suffer to prevent pregnancy. Like, I get it, I'm a guy. It's a risk but the alternative is that you don't take a risk. But I like my odds in a vasectomy better than my partner's during pregnancy or over a lifetime of birth control

[mcphage]

“Life long pain and discomfort” is obviously a major complication, nobody is pretending it is not.

[addisonl]

Bad comparison since drunk driving impacts others.

[mmh0000]

Hah! I enjoyed that pun. Thanks for improving my day.

[RjQoLCOSwiIKfpm]

Remember when COVID hit and some people were saying "1% chance of death isn't much" and then they had to be informed that 1% is very high and we're in serious trouble?

Why is 1% low when we're talking about lifelong pain?

[colpabar]

Easy, because the commenter making that argument is a proponent of men getting vasectomies, and they are choosing to interpret the statistics in a way that is favorable to their position. Just like what the people you are describing were doing with covid stats. Just like what people do with statistics on gun crimes or school shootings.

To me it seems like whenever statistics get posted on HN the discussion is bound to devolve into pointless arguments. Statistics are crucial and necessary and we have to have hard data to support everything when said hard data supports MY positions, but when it supports YOURS it's obviously biased and incomplete and inaccurate and useless.

And I guess I should point out that I am in no way saying statistics shouldn't be used when making decisions. It's just that whenever I see them posted here, it means I'm not going to learn anything from that particular comment thread and it's time to move on to the next one.

[ryanklee]

In what context would it make sense to make an argument that ran counter to statistics bearing on the subject when the statistics themselves appear uncontroversial?

It seems like an empty criticism to point out that someone's cited statistics agree with their argument.

Instead, either find a problem with the argument or find a problem with the statistics.

Furthermore, I made no claim that people ought to get vasectomies.

My intention was to counterbalance anecdotal fear mongering about a procedure that is well known to be safe and effective as form of birth control.

[Fire-Dragon-DoL]

1-2% is really high from my perspective