Talk:Hemorrhoid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance assessment scale

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hemorrhoid article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Sexually Transmitted

Shouldn't this category be removed, or else explained in the article, since it's already been discussed that it's not sex-related? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.124.48 (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prevalence

Can anyone provide some non-U.S based statistics please? I've added the globalize/USA tag to that section. Crimson Shadow 22:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree. --Faraz Parsa 02:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor definition

Very remarkably, this article fails to explain what a hemorrhoid actually is. There is a very useful discussion, including pictures, at one web site. (I'll try to find it again.) 金 (Kim) 01:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello, isn't hemorrhoid defined as varicosed (inflamed) rectal veins? Hfwd 06:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've just put on a title so it doesn't mess up the contents thingy. Hope you don't mind.Crimson Shadow 22:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of treatment listing

I find it curious that medical treatments have been listed first. It seems more reasonable to go in the order a person would naturally proceed in his/her efforts, from least extraordinary (lowest risk and cost) to most, with surge7ry being the last extreme. I am changing the order in accordance with that thought until further discussion. I am also using the neutral point of view to clarify that different people use different treatments. Tom H. 17:10, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to order them in terms of treatment effectiveness or invasiveness? I don't think cost plays a legitimate role in evaluating the merits of a particular treatment regieme. That said, I agree that effective, low cost solutions be presented first.207.112.70.62 19:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

hi i jsut lloked up Hamorrhoids in the oxford medical ditionary and it defines them as 'enlarged spongy blood filled cushions of the anus' is this a case of differnt definitions in different aprts of the world. I htink i can se how varicous veins might be related to this definition phil, 18:47 , 14 may 2007

I read that after surgical removal of hemorroids it may still reappear if one will not watch his\her lifestyle (posture, diet, etc). Can anyone confirm this information? 85.223.172.189 (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Alem

Definitely! You can remove hemorroids surgically and a week later, you'll expel hard feces and other hemorroids will show up. You must make sure to never ever have hard feces by watching your diet mainly. See Further advice below. -- Robert Abitbol

[edit] Reading on the toilet?

I'd like to know how reading on the toilet qualifies as a- "poor bathroom habits" and b- a cause for Hemorrhoids. Is this a joke? LeoDV 3 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)

Not at all. Not a joke. Is there some way we need to improve the statement or clarify? Tom Haws July 3, 2005 20:19 (UTC)

I agree with LeoDV, how does reading on the toilet cause haemorrhoids? Sounds like something my grandmother would tell me, not something that belongs in an encyclopaedia. --Rathilien 03:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

From eMedicine article "Prolonged sitting on a toilet (eg, while reading) is believed to cause a relative venous return problem in the perianal area (a tourniquet effect), resulting in enlarged hemorrhoids." [1] Hfwd 16:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Precisely our point. So it should read more like "Prolonged sitting on the toilet may increase the likelihood of haemorrhoids" not "Reading on the toilet causes haemorrhoids". That fact that you happen to be reading while you're sitting is beside the point, maybe I play my laptop while I sit on the toilet - I guess this won't cause haemorrhoids because I'm not reading. Sorry for being sarcastic, but you see my point. --Rathilien 04:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I study medicine in Denmark (early stage though, but during anatomy-studies we read a lot about clinical cases and so on), and my teachers simply reduce it to "habits of long time sitting, e.g. truck drivers" and so on, which increases the riscs for H... Out of that you could always get that if you sit at the toilet for a long time... But on the other hand, if you increase the pressure in the rectal channel when sitting on a toilet, I guess you thereby increase the riscs...--Vevebe 08:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


NEVER COULD FIGURE OUT WHY PEOPLE AT THE OFFICE FEEL COMPELLED TO SPEND TIME READING IN THE MENS ROOM - A ROOM WITH A REVOLTING STENCH. WHUZ UP WIT DAT?

Rathilien: How the hell do you use your laptop without reading? Djupi 04:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Prolonged sitting can, supposedly, be a contributing factor to hemorrhoids. See #1 in the list of references section - Mayo Clinic. NiteHacker 01:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Djupi. Surfing internet porn with a wireless connection perhaps? But that's another subject for another W-pedia article. Greenbomb101 17:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Funny. Just as this morning I was wondering about an image for this article, someone comes along and does exactly what I thought would be an outrageous example of why some images are a poor excuse for what an encyclopedia can be. I was going to say, "Should I photograph myself for the Hemorrhoid article?" And here along comes a fellow who does just that. I realize we don't have paid artists on staff, but until we can procure some high quality line sectional illustrations, we will just have to do without images. The information presented from surface photos is not clear, and the grossology factor outweighs any informative value it might have. This also applies, I think to photographing yourself for the penis or nipple article. A photo simply does not inform and educate like a good, full-color, sectional illustration. Need we gross out just for fun? Tom Haws July 8, 2005 04:27 (UTC)

Agreed. Photographs of the real thing don't belong. If it's not safe for family-type viewing, there's no educational value in it. --crumb 8 July 2005 05:25 (UTC)

Leonard suggested we might have a text link "See here for a photograph." I think Leonard and I see essentially eye to eye. I note again that the particular image in question is really not very enlightening about hemorrhoids. It pretty much is essentially a picture of a clean anus with a sore and hair near it. The sore is not quintessentially hemorrhoidal in appearance, from what I can see. I really like Leonard's suggestion of a text link because it resolves the main problem which is that a lot of people would probably rather not read the article than have that image taking their picture. Again, this isn't the right image, but if there are strong feelings in favor of it, a text link is a good compromise that invites improvement. Tom Haws July 8, 2005 14:41 (UTC)

I've deleted links to the pictures as it was taken from another website and may be copyrighted Hfwd 17:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. When I added the image to this article, I haven't stopped and taken copyright issues with the photograph into consideration. I only added the photograph to end the stupid troll war with CunningLinguist14 who persistently inserted a photograph of an anal fissure into the article. (see history) --crumb 17:45, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
No worries - I understand. Troll war is the bane of wiki.Hfwd 17:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Somebody copyrighted a picture of a haemorrhoid? Geez, what's the human race coming to... --Rathilien 03:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to remove the picture itself? I am rather disgusted by it and that was not the reason why I came to the page.

This is simple if you are offened by it don't look at it. its rather simpleYourname 23:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The current picture is good and I think it certainly belongs in the article since it does show the truth. (Image:Hemorrhoids1.jpg) Although I also agree it is gross and shocking to see. But if the rest of you prefer shrinking the size of the image or changing it to a text link I won't disagree. By the way, I think that image might be good to have there to show to those that say we should "suck it up" and stop complaining about our "minor" problem. --David Göthberg 06:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) (Who's actually in for surgery tomorrow...)

The current pictures are repulsive and unnecessary. They are not enlightening in any way and only have shock value. I am removing them.

I dont like the image. I would definitly support a text link to the picture for those interested. At its current position, its impossible to NOT see it.


I propose we delete the picture, not because it's gross, but because it's misleading. The picture seems to be a prolapsed grade III or IV hemorrhoid, which is a severe (and chronic) form of hemorrhoid afflicting only a small portion of patients. If we need to put a picture, then we should use an endoscopic image of a grade I or II hemorrhoid, the most common form. Hfwd 15:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

this one is simple if you don't like it don't look at it now quit compling and whining Yourname 19:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

stop removing the pic until a vote has been made on one said to remove itYourname 19:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Users who agree with the above may remove the picture, without having to wait for some arbitrary vote. --Hetar 04:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

unless you are in chage here i will restore the picture if it is removed untill someone who IS in chage says differentYourname 23:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My $0.0.2: I don't think that "it's gross" should be a reason to remove the photo since, like it or not, it does inform the reader about what hemorrhoids look like. However, I also agree with Hfwd's opinion - if it's misleading in that it doesn't represent the most likely physical appearance of the condition then that particular photo shouldn't be there. As far as a sectional illustration goes, that would also be worthwhile, but in addition to, rather than instead of a photo. -- Hux 06:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well for me the picture has great value, because I decided to see a doctor soon after I see what my small (POSSIBLY, that's why I need to check a doctor) Hemorrhoid problem could become! In this way it's been very useful and I also think seeing an actual picture always helps. But I agree we should add a note about the "grade", that is depicted here.

From my POV as a med student, it should be there. This is an encyclopedia you know. I'm adding it again, with an explanation of the fact that those are indeed more serious forms. Grossness is not a valid arguement. And please, everyone sign your comments with for tildes like this ~~~~.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images are Disgusting, Some Think

Especially the second one. This is the Wikipedia, not some shock website. I think an image like this would be much more suitable [2] --void main 14:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That photo has very little educational value. 24.175.10.61 03:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

See also the discussion above.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 22:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The endoscopic views are pretty good. An image of an external grade I or II hemorrhoid would likely be quite beneficial. The Grade III/IV ones currently there are probably excessive. A cartoon of the course of the hemorrhoidal veins would also be beneficial. Bdolcourt 14:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That may not be accurate in saying that grade I and II are the most common... it also may depend on what region(s) you may be talking about... just US or the world on the whole! If you are going to use that argument... then what reference do you have on that? I haven't seen any data on that to back up such a statement. In any case, when people get grade I or II, they usually tend to put it off since it's not that serious... then it progresses to grade III or IV but still may put it off because of the pain and healing stages and from the fear of getting the problem taken care of! I wonder what the stats are on that? At what grade do most people tend to resolve this problem? Here's a prime example of it (talk about disgusting too!)...

Image:hemorrhoids-4sm.jpg

I think any images would serve the people who are seeking knowledge on this subject! Maybe to resolve this issue, maybe there should be a level/rating set on such and/or ALL images on Wikipedia... such as G, PG, etc. Anyways, in closing... I say...

Strong keep NiteHacker 01:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not even sure that what I have is the same as what is pictured. Mine does not look anything like that. And, can it actually burst?!? 75.164.243.220 07:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)PostPregnancyPain

Strong keep (March 30th 2008) It does not burst. This is an excellent picture. Very realistic. Mild case of hemorroids I would say. The colo-rectal doctor (which some call derisively the ass doctor) will apply two elastics on the hemorroids; the elastics will choke the hemorroids and in turn, they will eventually melt and be expelled during feces and the problem will be gone. Yhe hemorroids will reappear if the conditions that led to their appearance in the first place are repeated. Colo-rectal specialists see a lot of such hemorroids every day. It's not clear in the picture if the anus is obstructed by the hemorroids. RobertAbitbol

[edit] Yuck

Strong delete Please, someone, remove them.

Keep These images can be disgusting for some people, but that's the truth. How to illustrate the article without these? I know this is a hard problem, maybe I'm against removing them because of being a medical student. So I should say: don't remove them. But if too many editor want these to remove, then there's no choice. NCurse Image:Edu science.png work 06:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep

If I can add a comment from a patient's point of view: My wife recently had haemorrhoid surgery, and this kind of image is actually helpful to the more curious patient who really wants to know what a haemorrhoid looks like from inside, and what a severe haemorrhoid can look like. I think it is reasonable to apply some censorship to inflammatory (no pun intended!) and frankly pornographic images, but these images are directly explanatory to the material. If these images are considered disgusting by some, that's not so surprising, as varicose haemorrhoids are by nature rather disgusting things (in so far as a disease can be considered to be disgusting). So this is my strongly felt vote to keep these images. --Slashme 08:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Why delete them? Because some people find them disgusting? I hate the appearance of wasps, but I'm not complaining about images of wasps being in the wasp article. Crimson Shadow 22:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep They are relevant to the article. Medical pictures are often not all that "sexy" to look at, but these are not speculative imo. and are relevant to the topic. galar71 23:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We'll be keeping these - they're relevant and accurate. We will soon have a less-"disgusting" diagram to place at the top of the page, but although we may move the photos down in the article there's no need to remove them. — Catherine\talk 23:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The endo pic is a neat compromise for the top. The grade 3 and 4 hemorrhoid pics do go over the top a little (I quickly perused Yamada, Odze, Sleisenger and Fordtran and the hemorrhoid pics they use are less graphic), but certainly shouldn't be deleted. Agree with Catherine that they could go lower in the article. -- Samir धर्म 05:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Then I think it has been solved. :) Cheers. NCurse Image:Edu science.png work 06:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep they're medical images in a medical article. I didn't find them gross (and I was looking at them while eating dinner). Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New diagrams

Different Types of Hemorrhoids, by User:WikipedianProlific
Different Types of Hemorrhoids, by User:WikipedianProlific
Here are some diagrams from NIH -- I believe these are public domain, per {{PD-USGov-HHS-NIH}}:
And here area a few other public domain photos, from other language versions of Wikipedia:
That might give us a few more choices. — Catherine\talk 02:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Never use ADAM-pictures, those are NOT {{PD-USGov-HHS-NIH}}. I'm going for the German picture.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 20:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Darn, I thought they'd work so well here too, but I see you're right. Ick. I'm adding a "diagram requested" tag at the top of the page here, and I'll try contacting a couple of the folks on Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Graphic artists and see if they can take on this ugly job. Sorry about the mislead.... — Catherine\talk 20:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks to User:WikipedianProlific, who has agreed to make a diagram for the page sometime in the next week or so! — Catherine\talk 19:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, great thanks to Prolific who has provided a brilliant diagram for us! — Catherine\talk 18:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
A wonderfully illustrated diagram! Well done; it's comprarable to diagrams in textbooks of gastroenterology -- Samir धर्म 05:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strong modify.

Hemorroids are a horrific reality. Yes, they are terrible to watch, yet their horrific nature does not warrants the deleating of images that explain what the hemorroid looks like, and in some bizarre way the shock they provide may be considered helpful to those who undervalue the severity of the diagnosis. What to do then? Perhaps profesional images would be assimilated better. I dont really see the value of images I cannot observe, just like I do not see the profit of a site whose images I cannot tolerate. I would sujest a link to more explicit images with a BIG disclaimer where these more explicit images can be stored. Eman.

[edit] Suppositories

The article notes that suppositories "add very little since all of the symptoms come from the external tissues and not up in the rectum where the suppository goes." There are two problems with this: 1) the article notes that some hemorrhoids are external while some are internal so, according to the logic in the above statement, suppositories should address the internal ones, and 2) if suppositories "add very little" then why do doctors regularly prescribe them after an examination? -- Hux 06:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to add, suppositories can be helpful to reduce straining and thus reducing venous pressure. Also, Hydrocortisone suppositories are standard therapy. Bdolcourt 14:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed the statement that suppositories are of little use. They work just fine for thousands of people (including me), so such adverse statements need to be backed up. I also added a link to the Preparation H article, as this explains exactly how they work.--Shantavira 10:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation styles

I have re-cast the references using cite.php, and have started re-formatting them using the citation templates. I hope to get a chance to finish the job sometime soon, but don't let that stop you if you want to beat me to the punch! --Slashme 11:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article disputed

I think the causes, prevention and treatments sections might not be factually accurate. Please discuss here. The evidence for squatting was grossly exagerated and of poor quality, and I'm wondering where the rest of the info comes from. If citation is not provided, this content may be deleted.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, which statements are disputed? Labelling 3 sections as not accurate is fairly broad, please specify so we can take a look. Hfwd 06:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
These paragraphs simply don't state references, so although something is general as "The causes of hemorrhoids include genetic predisposition (weak rectal vein walls and/or valves),..." sounds logical, I'd like to see a reputable source for it. But the Food-section is the one needing most cleanup I suspect.
"Washing the anus with cool water and soap may reduce the swelling and increase blood supply for quicker healing and may remove irritating fluid." Like to see that one in a reputed source...
"Doucheing The Rectum" and "Doppler Guided Hemorrhoidal Artery Ligation : The only evidence based surgery..." could definitely use some backup too...
I know it's a pretty wide tag but I think those sections need a thorough investigation...
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm dropping the tag. It isn't intended for statements that are simply unreferenced. ike9898 21:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


OH POO!!!

[edit] Cycling

Does anyone know if cycling causes Hemorrhoids? I've heard that it can cause impotence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.61.249 (talk • contribs)

This page is for discussion of the article only. Try asking your question at the reference desk. Don't forget to sign your posts.--Shantavira 10:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are you kidding me?!

What are you people thinking with the second picture? Don't give me some garbage about how educational it is or how hemorrhoids are a fact of life and are disgusting in real life and should therefore be depicted in a disgusting manner on this website. The first image suffices...the only reason you would keep the second image in is to shock/gross people out. I think that some people on this site enjoy putting up pictures like this and claiming educational value instead of making the readers happy. There is absolutely no need for the second picture and I think it is extremely inappropriate. What possible value does that image have? The article is realistic and the first image conveys to the reader that hemorrhoids are gross....we get that from the description (I mean, they are blood clots of the sphincter)...what does the second image accomplish? I move for immediate deletion, I do not care that this has already been discussed...I still feel it should be deleted. 76.16.75.77 06:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Sorry. Geoff B 06:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to say it was quite educational. I had Hemorrhoid for the first time and thanks to this article I now know that it is not a gib issue. Believe me, it was quite scary at first. Kudos 24.89.245.62 04:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
same here. 71.116.132.217 (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Not being funny but you can't really detract from the educational value of a picture, especially in the case of people who use WP as a first reference when they need to research something. Sure it grosses people out, but you can't censor WP, not least the internet... am i wrongHeyimdan (Talk) 23:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complications

Someone should list the complications of hemmorhoids like emboli formation and bleeding and whatnot.

[edit] Uncited causes

Is it acceptable that anal sex is listed as a cause of piles in the matter-of-fact manner used in this article?? I'm putting the citation needed bit right there. BUPA and NHS (UK) do not list it on fact-sheets, so surely an encyclopaedic article shouldn't speculate?? Heyimdan (Talk) 01:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

After going through a few previews I've now noted that the wording of that has absolutely nothing to do with piles whatsoever. Should it even be included in the article? Particularly the brackets about vaginal sex. It just seems a bit underhanded.Heyimdan (Talk) 01:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] squatting position

"using the squatting position while making a bowel movement" what other position is there when taking a poo? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.196.155.176 (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Sitting. On a toilet. Geoff B 06:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is the text about the "Doppler Guided Hemorrhoidal Artery Ligation" valid to Wikipedia style?

The section on treatments has an entry called "Doppler Guided Hemorrhoidal Artery Ligation". In its text:

  • The person who added the text introduces himself.
  • It is described where the external link on the reference points to.

I'm quite sure that it's not the correct way to write something in an article. It wouldn't be hard for anyone, given these excerpts, to think that the entry for that treatment was written as an advertisement. Mainly if you consider that the entry states great virtues and no drawbacks. Ok. Should the text in that entry be modified?

I was wondering that myself, but I'm not qualified to change it. It does sound a little like an advertisement, and while it was polite of the poster to add the clarification about the reference, it sounds unencyclopedic. Maybe this should be turned into a stub on another page instead? If there aren't enough references on the net for that, then it probably shouldn't be included at all. Prgrmr@wrk 18:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

Can someone cleanup this article already? There are way too many tags: globalize, trivia, a number of unreferenced tags. Please clean it up already! If I knew enough about the topic (I was merely here for research), I'd work on it. But this is in dire need of help! --myselfalso 19:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm

I just got a pretty painful case of hemorrhoids two nights ago. I don't really know where it originated from, but I've had minor cases in the past which go away on their own. now this is large and painful enough to warrant some research. I'm wondering about something. It looks like hemorrhoids are just big inflamations of blood. Can I aleviate the pain and pressure by trying to pop the hemorrhoid with a sewing needle or something? The only problem I would risk is an infection which is a big concern...

(March 30th) Are you out of your mind? Don't touch these hemorroids with anything unless you really want trouble! You'll end up bleeding profusely and you'll need to get stiches at the hospital. Go see a colo-rectal specialist and he/she'll apply the elastics on your hemorroids and you'll be OK. See Further advice below.
You simply probably had feces harder than at anytime before for a reason or another. Do you eat a lof of meat? No fruits, no salads, no white bread? -- Robert Abitbol

Try squatting for bowel movements. Use the full squatting position, not just elevating your feet. (This is according to Dr. Sikirov, who did the research presented in the article.) One way is to put a container on the floor and some "footpads" on either side of the container to raise yourself above it. Here's a picture of the setup. A little disagreeable, but much less so than surgery or ligation. Hemorrhoids result from the cumulative effect of straining on the unnatural "sitting" toilet. The epidemiological evidence is quite clear on this. Fiber has little or no value for prevention or treatment. --Jonathan108 01:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what squatting looks like (for those who don't know.) And this is the research on using it to treat hemorrhoids. Back in 1979, when President Jimmy Carter had hemorrhoid surgery, a reporter from Time Magazine asked a noted hemorrhoid expert what causes the disease. His answer appeared in the next issue: "Man was not meant to sit on a toilet seat, but to squat in a field." --Jonathan108 01:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Causes

Hemorrhoids have plagued human beings throughout history, perhaps beginning when we first assumed upright posture. Beginning in Medieval times, hemorrhoids were known as St. Fiacre's curse, and today hemorrhoid sufferers from around the world visit St. Fiacre's stone in order to obtain a miracle cure. St. Fiacre, also known as the patron saint of gardeners, was told he could farm all the land he could cultivate in a single day. He was given a particularly small shovel by a less then benevolent bishop. After a particularly long day of spading his garden, in order to obtain the maximum amount of land, he developed a terrible case of prolapsed hemorrhoids. Seeking a solution, he sat on a stone and prayed for resolution of his problems. This resulted in a miraculous cure and, according to legend, the imprint of St. Fiacre's hemorrhoids remains on the stone today. Hemorrhoid sufferers from all over the world continue to sit on this stone and pray for relief. . . --Light current 22:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] St Fiacre Clontubrid was once a parish, though the parish church has long since disappeared, its site being just south of the present chapel. The patron of this parish was St. Fiachra, whose feast was celebrated locally on February 8th. His holy well, which gives Clontubrid it’s name, is a few yards from the sacristy of the present chapel. Over the wall is a small, and very ancient, stone roofed house. The walls were once faced with smooth-surfaced stones but most of these were taken away about 1800 by Caulfied Best, of Clone House. The only opening is a doorway in the East Side. The floor was formed by three flagstones and underneath these was the well. Carrigan gives the name of the well as Tobar a “dhithreabhaigh” (pronounced Thubberararoo) – "The Well of the Hermit", confirming a local tradition that the well house had been the cell of a hermit. There are several saints named Fiachra but only one was known as Dhithreabhaigh (Hermit), the Fiachra of Meaux, France. The Fiachra of Clontubrid and the Fiachra of Meaux must, therefore be the same person. This St. Fiachra was a native of northwest Connaght and also spent some time as a hermit at Kilfera, near Kilkenny, where a pattern of St. Fiachra was held annually on the first Sunday of August. There was a life-size stone statue at Kilfera, called “St. Fiacre’s Statue” and, up to the middle of the nineteenth century, a small stone cell similar to, but larger than, that at Clontubrid. The remains of this cell were destroyed in 1869 to erect a Purcell monument in the graveyard. It is, however, through his work in France that the greatest cult of St. Fiachra has developed. He arrived at the Diocese of Meaux, (east of Paris), about 626 and was given a hermitage by the local bishop. Fiachra became famous throughout France for this work with the poor and the sick, for this holiness, and for his remarkable cures. Two later French saints, St. John of Matha and St. Vincent de Paul regarded Fiachra as their inspiration and patron while two famous French churchmen – Bossnet, Bishop of Meaux and Cardinal Richelieu – were also devoted to the cult of Fiacre. These latter two had great influence with the French Royal Family and pilgrimages were often made by the Kings of France to the shrine of St. Fiachra. Louis XI renovated the shrine, placing on it the Royal Coat of Arms of France. Louis XIII and his Queen, Anne prayed to Fiachra for an heir. When their son was born, they regarded him as the answer to their prayers. This son was to become King Louis XIV. Tradition says that Louis XIII died holding a St. Fiachra medallion in his hand. Louis XIV and Louis XV were both cured of fistulae, (a type of ulcer), after praying to St. Fiachra. So many people were thus cured of this ailment that it is known in France as “La maladie de St. Fiacre”, (St. Fiacre’s ailment). King Henry V of England, after the Battle of Agincourt (1415), allowed his soldiers to vandalise the shrine of St. Fiachra at Meaux and carry off the relics of the saint, *************beyond the boundary of the monastery and the relics were returned. By a strange coincidence, Henry died later of haemorrhoids, a condition which was traditionally cured by praying to St. Fiacre. By an even stranger coincidence, Henry died on August 30th, the feast day of St. Fiachra. Not surprisingly, these events added to the reputation of St. Fiachra. Such is the extent of his cult in France that three French towns bear his name and thirty churches are dedicated to him. In Paris gifts of flowers are brought annually to the Church of St. Ferdinand on his feast day. The first public transport in Paris, horse – drawn cabs, used the Hotel St. Fiacre as their terminus. They became known as “fiacres” and taxis in France have been so-called ever since. Just for good measure, Fiachra is also the patron saint of French gardeners. Certainly a man who made good, in the best tradition of the Irish emigrant! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adyanthaya (talk • contribs) 09:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


St.Fiacre is also known as PATRON SAINT OF PROCTOLOGY

This reference i got when i was going through a text book COLON,RECTAL AND ANAL SURGERY- Curranttechnique and controversies by Ira J Kodner, Robert D Fry John P Roe.

REF: Rachochot JE, Petourand CH, and Riovoire JOm: St. Fiacre. The healer of haemorrhoides and patron saint of proctology, Am. J. Procl. 22:175, 1971Adyanthaya 09:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] St. Fiacre Adyanthaya 09:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)St. Fiacre Abbot, born in Ireland about the end of the sixth century; died 18 August, 670. Having been ordained priest, he retired to a hermitage on the banks of the Nore of which the townland Kilfiachra, or Kilfera, County Kilkenny, still preserves the memory. Disciples flocked to him, but, desirous of greater solitude, he left his native land and arrived, in 628, at Meaux, where St. Faro then held episcopal sway. He was generously received by Faro, whose kindly feelings were engaged to the Irish monk for blessings which he and his father's house had received from the Irish missionary Columbanus. Faro granted him out of his own patrimony a site at Brogillum (Breuil) surrounded by forests. Here Fiacre built an oratory in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary, a hospice in which he received strangers, and a cell in which he himself lived apart. He lived a life of great mortification, in prayer, fast, vigil, and the manual labour of the garden. Disciples gathered around him and soon formed a monastery. There is a legend that St. Faro allowed him as much land as he might surround in one day with a furrow; that Fiacre turned up the earth with the point of his crosier, and that an officious woman hastened to tell Faro that he was being beguiled; that Faro coming to the wood recognized that the wonderworker was a man of God and sought his blessing, and that Fiacre henceforth excluded women, on pain of severe bodily infirmity, from the precincts of his monastery. In reality, the exclusion of women was a common rule in the Irish foundations. His fame for miracles was widespread. He cured all manner of diseases by laying on his hands; blindness, polypus, fevers are mentioned, and especially a tumour or fistula since called "le fic de S. Fiacre". His remains were interred in the church at Breuil, where his sanctity was soon attested by the numerous cures wrought at his tomb. Many churches and oratories have been dedicated to him throughout France. His shrine at Breuil is still a resort for pilgrims with bodily ailments. In 1234 his remains were placed in a shrine by Pierre, Bishop of Meaux, his arm being encased in a separate reliquary. In 1479 the relics of Sts. Fiacre and Kilian were placed in a silver shrine, which was removed in 1568 to the cathedral church at Meaux for safety from the destructive fanaticism of the Calvinists. In 1617 the Bishop of Meaux gave part of the saint's body to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and in 1637 the shrine was again opened and part of the vertebrae given to Cardinal Richelieu. A mystery play of the fifteenth century celebrates St. Fiacre's life and miracles. St. John of Matha, Louis XIII, and Anne of Austria were among his most famous clients. He is the patron of gardeners. The French cab derives its name from him. The Hôtel de St-Fiacre, in the Rue St-Martin, Paris, in the middle of the seventeenth century first let these coaches on hire. The sign of the inn was an image of the saint, and the coaches in time came to be called by his name. His feast is kept on the 30th of August.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fiacre"

The article listed Anal Sex as a cause and refrenced the mayo clinic website, which does not make any refrence to anal sex. So that refrence has been removed. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hemorrhoids/DS00096/DSECTION=3 In addition it is specifically mentioned as a myth that anal sex causes hemerrhoids on this website: http://www.hemaron.com/hemorrhoids-treatment/hemorrhoids-myths.htm --David F 20:28, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Use of squat toilets

Someone asked a question about Sikirov's 1987 study, but put the question into the article. The appropriate place for discussing evidence is this talk page.

The question was about a control group. The study is not available online, but Sikirov reported all the details in his patent documents, which can be seen at this link. The chart displayed is easier to read if you click on "Images". --Jonathan108 (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)