marjon9

I also take 7.5 daily. My surgeon wanted me to go off a few days ahead and then get back on after the surgery. I actually had to have my surgery postponed for a day because the effects of coumadin lingered a little longer than expected after going off of it and my blood was still too thin on the scheduled date. But I just had the surgery done the next day and everything was fine.

The issue of coumadin has come up in one other situation. That is, with my fills. The doctor wanted to be cautious and not aggressive with the fills. She thought that if we pushed the restriction too quickly it could conceivably cause some internal bleeding that could be a problem while being on coumadin. But nothing bad has actually happened because of the coumadin. It's just a matter of a little extra caution.

So, check with your doctor, but I believe it should be OK to be on coumadin and get the band.

:help::help:So I have my surgery scheduled for July 2, and my surgeon said to stop smoking one month prior to surgery. So for the past week and a half I have cut way down. On Monday, I smoked 2 cigarettes, on Tuesday, I smoked 1, and haven't had another since, BUT I WANT ONE SO BADLY:faint:.

Why, I don't know. I'm trying to figure it out. I'm petrafied that he will do a blood test and see nicotine in my system and cancel surgery, and that is what has held me back so far, but it's getting harder every day. I'm trying to research information on how long nicotine stays in the system, and read about body cleanses to do before drug tests. Am I crazy!!!!!!!! I feel unhuman right now. It doesn't help that my husband smokes and there is a pack of cigaretes sitting about 10 FEET from me as I type:angry.

So my question is, a lot of smokers used the nicorete gum to stop smoking, but this puts nicotine into your system also, so if a Dr. was to do a drug test, how would they know if you were smoking or chewing the gum:confused:? I want to buy the gum today, but don't want the nicotine to screw up my surgery date, and of course it's Saturday and the Dr's office is closed until Monday. I'm not sure they'll think it's that big of an emergency like I do:eek:.

Anyone else been through this, and am I crazy for even thinking about cheating my way through a drug test. If I can get the gum and chew it, maybe I won't want the cigarette anymore.

HELP ME!!!!!!!:help::help::help::help::help::help::help::help::help::help::help::help:

I really don't know how nicotine gum will affect your drug test, but I can say that it really helped me quit smoking. I have to tell you, in my opinion quitting smoking is more important than getting the lap band. As I see it, it really doesn't matter what other health measures you take if you are still smoking cigarettes.

Since you did not ask for my opinion, I'll give it anyway. I would stop worrying about your surgery date. I would focus on quitting smoking. Once you are at least a couple months away from smoking, then start to think about scheduling surgery. I think this is important to do because quitting smoking is much harder than people realize. And for some reason, lap band Doctors seem to encourage this view that quitting is relatively easy by saying things like "go ahead and quit smoking a month before the surgery." That encourages the view that quitting smoking is some sort of minor detail that a person can take care of on the way to lap band surgery. I just don't think that is true.

You say you are trying to figure out why you still want a cigarette. I think the reason you want a cigarette because nicotine is more addictive than heroin. (Did you know that?) That might have something to do with why you want a cigarette.

And as for getting the gum, personally, I could never have quit without the gum. I think that if you are avoiding getting the gum because you want to pass your lap band drug test, you are setting yourself up for failure in the quitting smoking. It is SO HARD to do cold turkey. Some people can do it. But not many. In my experience, the gum really helps.

By the way, here is a definition of nicotine that I just found in the dictionary:

"nicotine: a colorless, oily, water-soluble, highly toxic, liquid alkaloid, C10H14N2, found in tobacco and valued as an insecticide." Lovely. I guess we are all cockroaches to the tobacco industry.

And, beyond that, nicotine is only one of hundreds of other toxic chemicals in cigarettes.

You've got a long way to go before you can say you have "quit" smoking. If I were you, I would get the gum, or patch, or whatever, and focus totally on quitting smoking before setting a date for surgery. I would stop worrying about your lap band drug test, and just focus on quitting smoking. If it is as easy as the doctor says to quit, then great, you can reschedule your surgery with just a minor delay.

That's just my opinion. Good luck getting it sorted out.

The advice offered in this thread is good, but I just have to chime in and say that these experiences of being "stuck" can happen even if you follow the doctor's orders. You can minimize them or eliminate them if you are extremely careful about chewing forever, taking small bites, etc. But even with the greatest caution most people do get "stuck" from time to time. The answer for most people is the old "PB." Most people define this as a "productive burp" where you spit up the stuck food. Some people consider this to be "vomiting," but I think most people do not experience a "PB" as vomiting because the food is in a condition that is similar to the way it was in your mouth. There are no digestive juices, no stomach convulsions, etc. like vomiting. The food just comes back up from the bottom of your esophagus.

For me, I don't find the "PB" experience to be all that horrible. Other people absolutely hate it. In general it can tend to encourage band slippage so it is not a good idea to do it often. But, it is likely to happen to most people. Check out a thread on this forum called "How often do you PB."

I've been banded for about 5 months now and no longer have bowel movements. I sweat a lot and am a little irritable, but other than that I'm fine, dammit, so get off my back!!

But seriously, they seem to be normal, just probably smaller and fewer, due to the smaller portions.

I'd like to know too. I had my first fill about 10 days ago and no restriction from it. Is it really possible I might still get restriction from this fill? Interesting question.

Just like the previous reply, that doctor did not have the right to go against the families wishes and play "God" and neither does anyone else terminal or not terminal. Taking someones life or even your own before it is your time is playing "GOD". How come the ethanasias have the right tp play "God" but we dont when it comes to protecting someones life? Do it legally in writing and save everyone you love the anguish. DO not put it off or you will be faced with family members who believe they are acting out your wishes and end your life for you!

as for babygirl, we do not seem to agree on anything at all. Thats OK I respect your right to your own opinion. Lets keep talking. I enjoy your style!

I know this point has been made before but it bears repeating here. Most of the people that Dr. K was involved with would have died long before if it were not for extreme acts of medical intervention. If you are really interested in having people wait until it is "god's time" for their death, then they should be let go, if they want to be. (The "family's" wished are irrelevant here. It is the wishes of the patient that matter.)

If any of the people Dr. K helped were living, say, 100 years ago, they almost surely would not have survived as long as they did. What kept them alive was things like the most modern druges, respirator machines, chemotherapy, etc. These are human-made therapies, and have nothing to do with when a person has reached "god's time" to die.

So, when people are against Dr. K's approach to assisted suicide, what they are really saying is: A person should be required to endure every possible life-extending technology and drug that human beings can invent, regardless their own wish to be free from these things, and regardless of any unspeakable pain or anything else they are going through, simply because a certain faction of individuals who likes to call themselves "christian" thinks it should be that way.

This has nothing at all to do with someone reaching "god's time to die." This is about one group of people seeking to force others to live by their definition of morality. And in the case of assisted suicide the argument is particularly ludicrous. Very few of the people Dr. K helped would be alive at all if they were allowed to die in "god's time." They are alive only because of human intervention. Why is it that those opposing Dr. K are unwilling to see that obvious fact? Very hard to understand.

I've already answered you and you know it. The answer is no. I do not respect your position on this matter. I've explained why I don't. It doesn't mean I don't think you're reasonable, thoughtful, or compassionate, or that I don't respect your opinions on other matters. It doesn't mean I don't respect YOU. It doesn't mean I don't respect your right to have an opinion. It means I don't respect the opinion itself.

But let me ask you a question? Why do you care? What would it matter if I said yes? Yes or no, we still disagree. Why does the fact that I don't respect an opinion that I consider to be sanctioning the taking of a human life matter one way or another?

And as to your crickets, BJean, I do have a life and other things to do. I'm sorry I can't always respond at the snap of a fingers like you'd like me to.

The reason it matters to me is that I feel that your answer to this question provides insight into the chances for ultimate victory of the pro-choice movement. You have the view that the pro-choice arguments are not the product of thoughtful, compassionate thinking, and not worthy of respect. That tells me that your views are so far out of the mainstream that you can't possibly win this debate in the long term.

And it also tells me that your arguments will never change the minds of people who disagree with you. You can't win a debate with opponents while you are telling them at the same time that you do not respect their views. It's just never going to happen.

Now, if you had said that you do respect the views of the pro-choice movement, and understand that thoughtful and compassionate people can hold such views, that would have told me that I might actually need to be worried about you. That would have told me that you might actually possess the insight necessary to win the argument in the long term.

So, I hope that answers your question.

What the heck have I refused to answer? All I've said is I'm not going to debate the selection of words anymore, and I'm not going to respond when someone is hostile or calls me hostile.

I am not debating about a selection of words. I am asking you a question that goes to the heart of this debate as far as I'm concerned. I'm not calling you names and I'm not relating to you in a hostile manner. I'm asking you a straightforward, simple question. The question "the hecK" you have refused to answer is this one:

At this moment I say to you that I respect you and I believe that you have some arguments and points of view that deserve respect. I think you are a reasonable, thoughtful, compassionate person. I disagree with your arguments, but I respect them.

Are you willing to say the same?

That's a very simple question. Essentially it involves nothing more than a yes or no answer. Why not just answer it?

Sorry. Not going to debate about words used anymore. Happy to discuss the REAL issue at hand, that of whether it should be acceptable to stop a beating heart or not.

Why are you not willing to answer my question? You have stated repeatedly that you are always willing to answer any question that you are asked. What are you afraid of on this one? We've all been involved in this debate for quite some time. There is a difference of opinion here about what the "REAL" issue is. For me, the "REAL" issue is the question I asked you. Why are you afraid to answer my question? If the answer is no, it's no. Why not have the courage of your convictions? Why refuse to answer?

Yeah, like that. And I think there was something in there about Satan, too. None of which I ever said. I have never, ever called someone an "evil, blood-soaked baby killer." It isn't me who's ramping up the rhetoric.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the discussion has gotten heated in the past. How about if we put that behind us and look forward. At this moment I say to you that I respect you and I believe that you have some arguments and points of view that deserve respect. I think you are a reasonable, thoughtful, compassionate person. I disagree with your arguments, but I respect them.

Are you willing to say the same?

Where were you called names? Seriously, I must have missed that post.

Exactly. I don't see how saying "I respect you and your point of view" is "calling someone names."

Gadget will go to the absolute bitter end, changing the subject and ignoring the issue, and do anything she can possibly do in order to avoid admitting the fact that abortion is an issue with two sides, and that people in the pro-choice side of things have some reasonable arguments that are worthy of respect. Her argument will always boil down to the following: "Anyone who does not accept my view on abortion is an evil, blood-soaked baby killer."

Like I say, in the final analysis I welcome that point of view. It pushes people away from the pro-life side, which ultimately protects women. So, really, her views are very welcome here.

You do have a point, Mark. I had forgotten all about that post.

I do understand how passionate gadgetlady is about her point of view, and I'm not trying to put her down for it. I know that she really feels like she is fighting to defend babies from a brutal painful death. I may disagree but I understand and respect her position.

But I am also passionate about my point of view. I believe that if the pro-life camp is permitted to start making laws that everyone must follow, women of the United States will suffer greatly, and will, themselves, often face the prospect of a brutal, painful death for doing something that has been legal in this country for decades. I think it is outrageous that members of the pro-life camp are unwilling to acknowledge that reasonable, compassionate, thoughtful people could disagree with the pro-life position, and have a point of view that is worthy of understanding and respect. I'm not asking anyone to change their point of view. But to act like the pro-choice side is indisputably evil and utterly unworthy of respect is an outrageous point of view that makes it impossible to carry on a meaningful conversation.

Fortunately, most people on all sides of the issue understand that, and properly discount and discredit the views of this faction of hysterical pro-life individuals.

Either way, do you really think other people's minds would be changed when people verbally attack them and call them murderers, etc? Or are people more likely to be swayed in their opinions when the person trying to sway them is polite, respectful of the opinions held by the other person, and persuasive?

By the way, I am not saying that you attack anyone, Gadgetlady. I think that sometimes you may go a little too far, but at least you aren't calling people murderers for being pro-choice.

Laurend, I must say that I have a different view of gadgetlady's approach on this thread. Below is an example.

======================

Quote:

Originally Posted by marjon9

We disagree with each other. I understand and respect your position. You seem unable to do the same with respect to my point of view.

You are absolutely right. I cannot respect any opinion that holds it is acceptable to brutally rip the life away from another human being. Sorry 'bout that.

===========================

To me this is an example of the hysterical pro-life position that says, "anyone who disagrees with the pro-life point of view is an evil, blood-soaked baby killer worthy of no respect and deserving of the shortest possible trip to eternal damnation."

This extreme, hysterical faction of the pro-life movement holds the view that anyone who believes in a woman's right to choose is literally a human incarnation of satan. It is pretty difficult to have a conversation with such a person, and I find gadgetlady to fall within that camp.

But, as I've said before, I welcome these people into the debate. They do more to help our side win the day than anything else I can think of.

I had pretty good restriction for a couple months after surgery even without a fill, so I did not get one. But when I lost the restriction I went right away for a fill. I'm going to get another one as soon as possible because the first one did not give me the restriction I need.

The whole point of the band is to have a tool that allows you to feel full on smaller portions. Without restriction, that band doesn't work at all. If you are going around starving you should get a fill, or why get the band in the first place. The band is not about testing your will power to hold up against starvation. It's about having a tool to lose weight with little or no little or no starvation or will power.

Getting the band and not getting a fill is like buying a gasoline lawn mower but still pushing it by hand when you mow the lawn. What's the point? Why spend the money?

This is not meant to be a personal attack at all. Sorry if it comes across that way, I am just trying to make a point. I just think that someone gave you the wrong idea somewhere along the line of what the band is for and how to use it.

If the band is working for you without a fill, and you are happy that way, obviously go with the method that you are happy with.

You ask why you should be polite and respectful about it because NO ONE will ever listen to you if you bash them continually for their beliefs. People don't take too kindly to that. When you spend your time condemning people for what they believe without listening to why they believe the way they do and kindly point out why you disagree; you are closing those lines of communication and you will never reach them. NEVER! Why is that so hard to understand? You have talked about your desire to uphold the sanctity of human life but then how do you treat that human life, you "strongly and vociferously condemn that person". How would you respond if someone treated you the same way? Think about that.

I have made no bones about saying I am pro-life. I feel very strongly about that and would love to change people's opinions who feel differently but I will never do that if I approach them with hostility. I mean, you have got to be kidding me if you think you can change people's opinions with your approach! While I feel that life begins at conception and that it is not our place to stop it, I am intelligent enough to understand that a lot of people view things differently than me. There are several things that I feel are wrong (immoral) that others don't but I would never treat them so horrible that they would shut me out. I don't have to agree with their choices or even pretend that it is acceptable but I feel that you should do it in a loving way. What kind of ministry would Christ of had if he would have approached things with hatred? NONE!

I don't know you so I don't know the things you struggle with but I do know that we all have them. None of us are perfect. Let's say you struggle with adultery and while someone is trying to change your opinions to show you why it is wrong, they use hostility. Would you even give them the time of day? I strongly doubt it! The same applies here.

All I am suggesting is that you step back and examine your approach here and ask yourself if you are really doing any good for the unborn lives? By totally turning people off with your attitude, you will not change their opinions and therefore will not do anything for the pro-life movement. Isn't your ultimate goal to change people's opinions and stop abortion? Then take the necessary steps to do that and stop condemning people.

Of course you are exactly right, niecyrenee, but can't you keep it quiet? Daffodil and a few others on this forum are the most effective weapons we have in the pro-choice arsenal. Their words are obviously going to do nothing but push people away from a pro-life perspective. And we'd like to keep it that way. So, please, sssshhhhh.....

Hi:

I just received my surgery date-Aug. 2. I'm really nervous and scared. I've never had any surgery or even been in the hosp. I'm also scraed that I will have the surgery and then after not be able to stick to the diet. I obviously haven't been able to prior to this. How do I make this decision? Any suggestions?

Tesma

Probably 90% of the people who get the band have these exact types of thoughts and questions, especially just before surgery. One thing you might want to do, if you would like a lot of feedback quickly, is to run a search on this forum with search terms like "second thoughts."

I'll try to give some short answers to your questions. As for "sticking to the diet," the purpose of the band is to help you lose weight without sticking to a diet. That's the point. With the band, you feel full with much smaller portions so you don't have to diet. You have to work with the band and not deliberately sabotage yourself by drinking McDonald's milkshakes all day. But if you just eat regular food, you will find that you are full on much smaller portions and you will lose weight without being hungry. We all have issues with controlling food. You don't need to solve all of those issues ahead of time for the band to work for you. The band helps you lose weight even if you still have issues with food. But again, there are limits. A person can find a way to gain weight even with the band, if they try hard enough.

As for being nervous about the surgery, everyone is. Surgery is scary. But the fact is, the actual risks are quite low. And when you compare the risks to your health from obesity that will come from not having the surgery, the odds are good that you will conclude, like most of us here, that the risk of surgery is less than then risk of not having it. So, we do it.

Ultimately, you will need to answer these questions for yourself. But most of us here have made the decision to get the band. And almost everyone is glad they did.

Yes, you are.

Then all I have to say to you is, please keep up the good work. The more people with your mindset continue to spew your bile, the less likely it is that the people of America will ever accept your way of thinking. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Keep it comin'!!

OK, let's say you hear someone passionately advocating murder, rape, child abuse...would you not strongly and vociferously condemn that person? Or would you be "polite and respectful " towards them? When a judge metes out a sentence to a convicted killer or rapist or terrorist, does he not call the person, or at least the deed "evil"? C'mon, folks. Let's not be politically correct to the point of ridiculousness. YOU feel strongly about murder, rape, car jacking, child abuse...I feel that abortion is most assuredly murder ! Why should I act so polite and respectful about it? It's because you have convinced yourself that abortion is just a choice...like buying a Buick instead of a Jeep, having blonde hair instead of brown...that you speak the words abortion and respectful together amazes me. Who respects the human rights of the child-to-be?

The difference, Daffodil, is that society is virtually unanimous in its conclusion that rape, murder, car jacking, child abuse, etc, are horrible crimes that require vociferous condemnation. Abortion is not like that. Society is divided. Indeed, your view is in the minority. This makes a difference.

As I understand it, your goal in this situation is to convince people that you are right. If that is your goal, you are simply not going to accomplish that goal by calling them murderers, and by refusing to acknowledge that thoughtful, intelligent, compassionate people do, in fact disagree with you.

It's not about political correctness. It's about results. You should feel free to vociferously condemn abortion all you want. I don't think anyone is telling you that you should not. But if you want results, if you want fewer abortions, you are not going to accomplish that result with a style that basically tells everyone who disagrees with you that they are evil, insane, blood-soaked murdering baby killers. That is such an extreme position that it is going to have a tendency, if anything, to push people to the other side.

I understand your position and respect you for it. I don't feel any need to call you a monster (even though I believe that the pro-life movement wants to cause changes in this country that would be unspeakably horrible for the women of America). Why is it that you are unable to respect people who disagree with you? I fully understand the passion you feel in your position, but I don't understand at all why you are unable to see that very compassionate and thoughtful people of good will truly do see things differently. I think it is a mistake for you to refuse to acknowledge that people who disagree with you deserve respect. No one is asking you to change your mind, but you should at least be willing to acknowlede that the majority of the population of the United States, who disagree with you, are not bloodthirsty monster baby killers.

My doctor was Dr. Kirshenbaum in Denver. $9950 for the procedure. He is a very experienced surgeon with quite a few people on this forum who are his patients. His web address is in my signature.

I also think the Mexican option may be a good one for you, especially since you are in California. From where you are you could actually return to Mexico for aftercare if you needed to.

Whatever you do, don't forget to make arrangements for your aftercare BEFORE you have the surgery. This is important. Make sure you know who you are going to go to for aftercare before you have the surgery.

There are definitely options under $18,000.

I quit about 10 years ago and I don't think I could have done it cold turkey. I tried a lot of times without the nicotine gum and never got past a few, awful days. With the gum it was really doable (although still about the hardest thing I've ever done). Now I am one of those terribly obnoxious ex-smokers who can't even be in the same room with a lit cigarette.

I don't know the answer to your ultimate question, but one thing for sure I don't understand a doctor who advises you to quit cold turkey. To me it just seems like being set up to fail.

The last thing I want to say is that I think the dangers of cigarette smoking are worse than the dangers of obesity. I don't think it makes sense to think of quitting smoking as a minor detail you'll take care of easily on your way to getting the lap band. I think it's going to be really hard, and might involve additional relapses. My recommendation would be to put the surgery on hold for a little while and focus totally on quitting smoking. Once you have that really under control then think about the surgery. Quitting smoking is hard. Doing it two weeks before lap band surgery is, in my opinion, just piling too much difficult change on your poor self. I just think it is really asking a too much of yourself to try and do all that at the same time.

Don't underestimate how hard it will be to quit smoking. I don't think you can easily commit to yourself that you'll quit smoking two weeks before surgery and definitely stay quit. That is a really, really hard thing to do.

Methinks you just like to argue. Facts are irrelevant to you as long as you can accuse or attempt to intimidate. I didn't name any particular scientist and call him a liar. I said "Any scientist who tells you that the inception of human being's life is at some time other than conception is lying, trying to evade the issue, or trying to support a political agenda."

So can you demonstrate to me a time other than conception when, scientifically, a separate human being is created? Not "I think" or "people disagree", or "nobody knows", but scientifically -- when is the separate DNA of a separate person in evidence?

Yup, I'm driving women to abortion clinics in droves with my arguments.

As I have stated many times, I do not believe that this is something that is susceptible of scientific proof. We all see the same "facts," and we all see the same "science," but these things mean different things to different people. In my view (as you know I have stated repeatedly), the point where life begins is a matter of conscience, not science.

Ah, but what about the different DNA, you argue. Again, that changes nothing at all. We all see the same facts, and we all see the same science. We simply interpret these things differently. No amount of "science" is going to change that. The "science" is there. We just disagree about what it means.

The pro-choice people look at this scenario and say, "we respect you and your point of view, but we respectfully disagree." In contrast, the hysterical pro life bunch looks at this scenario and says "you are all a bunch of insincere, selfish liars who put your own convenience ahead of the life of a child, you will say anything to forward a political agenda. How can we respect a bunch of evil, blood-soaked baby killers...." etc. etc.

Yes, gadget, like it or not, you and your ilk are, indeed, driving women to abortion clinics in droves with your arguments.

Welcome back! I thought you were too bored to continue.

Why do I display arrogance and disrespect when I bring up scientific facts?

I guess the real problem is you can't dispute my arguments so you fall back on attacking me with the ludicrous statement that I encourage abortions with my scientific facts.

You don't display arrogance and disrespect at all when you bring up scientific facts. But you definitely do display arrogance and disrespect when you make the statement that all scientists who express a certain view are "lying to support a political agenda." Accusing a scientist of "lying" is not really a "scientific fact," now is it.

But it does not surprise me at all that you refuse to actually confront the issue I raised, and instead seek to obscure it by changing the subject and making irrelevant comments in response to what I said.

Actually, I welcome the relentless barrage of pro-life hysteria that some on this forum continue to spew. It is one of the best tools in the pro-choice arsenal to make sure that the fewest possible number of people will ever agree with your side. Keep it comin'!!

Any scientist who tells you that the inception of human being's life is at some time other than conception is lying, trying to evade the issue, or trying to support a political agenda.

Now, there's an argument that is sure to change minds and bring people to your cause. Does arrogance and disrespect really get you where you want to go?

Regardless of whether you are right or wrong about any point, do you really not see the value of an attractive presentation? Your presentation is so repellant that I think it is fair to say that you literally encourage abortions every time you speak.

It is true that it's a good idea to be careful before the surgery. But there is also another reason why this is not a bad thing. That is, if you have apnea, it can be quite a serious problem, and it can really put a hit on your quality of life. I had it for years and never knew it, I just knew that I was tired a lot and had a hard time concentrating. To honest, I felt like crap most of the time.

My wife made me get a sleep test because I stopped breathing at night and snored like a cement mixer with a broken gear. Being a moron, I resisted getting the test for quite a while, but finally had the test. Of course, I had apnea, and got the CPAP. I started feeling much better almost immediately, stopped snoring completely, and now I would not consider sleeping without the CPAP.

Of course, if I lose enough weight, I may some day no longer need the CPAP. But that is a different question.

You are absolutely right. I cannot respect any opinion that holds it is acceptable to brutally rip the life away from another human being. Sorry 'bout that.

The thing that you and daffodil and funnyduddies don't understand is how much damage your do to the pro-life movement with your endless bitterness, disrespect, and hostility. I know you think you are doing god's work, but what you are actually doing is hurting your cause. Of course you won't be able to see that.