Dear Scotswife,
"so - the stomach itself is healthy and functioning normally, but the stomach is 'mutilated' in order to address non-stomach related issues."
I understand what you're saying. However, the normal function of the stomach isn't eliminated, only reduced to provide a health benefit. The function of the stomach isn't even eliminated temporarily.
As well, I believe that stomach stapling actually returns part of the function of the stomach from an unhealthful, abnormal state, to a healthier, more normal state.
"But what does stomach stapling address?"
My understanding of this surgery is that it reduces the capacity of the stomach, to make folks feel full with less food. The folks who ordinarily have this surgery tend, before having the surgery, to eat to significant excess without the stomach signaling to them that they're full.
But part of the proper function of the stomach is to alert a person that he has eaten enough and is full.
I've heard that this sometimes happens because folks overeat for years, and actually stretch their stomach so that it will readily hold much more food than ought to be eaten at one sitting.
Thus we cam conclude that in candidates for this surgery, the stomach isn't functioning entirely properly. It isn't signaling when the person has eaten enough, but rather signaling fullness after the person has eaten far too much.
The stomach stapling merely returns the stomach's functionality to its proper order, so that the stomach will once again alert the person that he's had enough to eat, long before the person consumes too much food, thus leading to obesity and related diseases.
I've read that this surgery isn't generally successful all by itself, because there are a number of other psychophysiological alerts and triggers that are involved in eating and overeating. But clearly, for folks who are good candidates for this treatment, the surgery corrects a real physiological problem.
"Obesity is a disease. Pregnancy isn't."
I'll reiterate that I should have said:
"Obesity is a disease. Fertility isn't."
Because fertility isn't a disease, because it isn't right to define the ability to get pregnant as intrinsically unhealthy, I don't think that the analogy to stomach stapling works too well. The bottom line is that stapling actually does enhance proper function of the stomach, by returning the stomach's role in alerting the person to fullness, but artificial contraception/sterilization do not enhance or correct any actual problem inherent to one's fertility.
sitetest
Fertility is not a disease, but what if the ability to get pregnant is intrinsically a threat to health and life?
Why is the potential to get pregnant the only body function we are not permitted to interfere with in itself to treat threats, although we may as an indirect effect?
Mrs VS