TEDAX removes artillery shell from patient's rectum

Forum user claims TEDAX removed projectile lodged in patient's rectum

An internet forum user stated that a hospital emergency service had to mobilize TEDAX (Spanish bomb disposal unit) experts to remove and neutralize an artillery shell carried by a patient in their rectum. According to the account, the device, described as an obus, forced an evacuation of the area while extraction was completed. The same user argues this is not an isolated case: in Spanish emergency services, the incidence of objects inserted via the rectum is, based on their experience, a constant known well by healthcare staff but rarely discussed publicly.

What is known about the obus and why TEDAX intervened

The central fact is this: an artillery shell —not a household object, not a sens toy, not a piece of fruit— inside the body of a person who, according to the report, arrived at a hospital. The presence of a potentially explosive device activates a protocol that does not depend on the attending physician's judgment: security forces are alerted, and explosives technicians assume the risk. Extraction is performed with the operating room prepared and staff at a distance.

The scene has a cold logic. An obus, even if unfired or presumed inert, is not handled like a spoon. TEDAX treats it as what it is until proven otherwise. This means time, perimeter control, and an emergency room converted into a technical operation site.

Catalog of objects arriving at ERs via rectal route

Healthcare staff sharing their experiences recently describe a constant trickle. Rarely does a month pass without someone appearing with something inside that must be removed. Among cited cases: a whole melon, a one-liter beer bottle, a square plastic alarm clock, a glass jar that ended up shattering inside. One patient explained they fell onto the object. Another said the same about the bottle.

The list is not folklore. It is recurring workload for surgeons and nurses, with its own extraction protocol, intestinal perforation risks, and operating room costs. And with a pattern staff emphasize: most affected individuals show no shame nor accept ridicule. They demand the public system solve the problem, period.

The other front: burns and abrasions in gynecological emergencies

Not everything arrives via the rectal route. The same staff describes frequent consultations from women with irritations, abrasions, and burns in the genital area caused by applying menthol, wasabi, chili, or rubbing nettles. They arrive unaware of what peine, only revealing self-inflicted actions when pain becomes severe.

The pattern repeats: first the experiment, then the emergency, with a healthcare system providing care without asking too many questions. Professionals consulted insist this is not specific sensual practice, but reckless use of irritant substances on mucous membranes unprepared to withstand them.

The dog, the fakir, and other shift scenes

First-hand accounts also include a case where a woman arrived on a stretcher with a dog attached, both covered by a sheet, and another involving a circus fakir with several daggers in his stomach who barely emerged from the trance. These anecdotes illustrate a more serious point: the emergency consultation acts as a thermometer for events outside the hospital.

Some argue these episodes are historical constants, with novelty lying only in current reporting. Counterarguments suggest viral challenges and normalization of certain practices have multiplied cases. Available data cannot settle this debate.

Who pays the bill and who demands it

The point generating most tension is not the object, but the invoice. Public healthcare covers extraction, surgery, imaging tests, and in cases like the obus, deployment of bomb disposal teams. Patients pay nothing extra for whims. This asymmetry between social cost and individual responsibility is the most repeated complaint among healthcare staff.

The underlying discussion is whether a universal system should cover unconditional behaviors generating avoidable risks and added expenses. Official response so far is yes. Unofficial response from those at the ER door is less enthusiastic.

---

The obus is out. The protocol worked. What remains unresolved is the uncomfortable question: if the system continues paying without questioning every experiment ending on a stretcher, someone must eventually decide where the limit lies. That limit will not be set by TEDAX.