If you're meeting with a colorectal surgeon, does that mean you're considering surgery of the colon rather than the small bowel?
I'm in a position where apparently I'm not suited for surgery for any part of my GI tract. I have Crohn's of both the colon and the small bowel. I had a recent colonoscopy where the colon was shown to be severely diseased. The surgeon who did it told me afterwards that surgery was indicated, but when I went along for my post-colonoscopy appointment the GI told me that surgery of the colon wouldn't be suitable because I have disease in the small bowel. In an appointment previous to that, she had been against small bowel surgery as well but I don't remember her exact words any more; just something about it coming back and more surgery being required, I think.
Bear in mind, I'm in the UK and under the "care" of the NHS, whose treatment protocol in the case of IBD seems to be patching you up just enough to ensure you don't actually die on them. Except in my case I have severe doubts they can actually manage that. I've been put onto a treatment regime of entocort and 6MP, with a view towards taking Remicade in 3 months. But Remicade isn't licenced as a maintenance therapy here, so I'm only allowed up to 3 doses. Both the Remicade and steroids are used as short-term treatments, with eventually only the 6MP being used as the long-term maintenance drug. But 6MP already failed on me once, so whatever.
"but remember that in just a few years, new ground breaking drugs have come onto the scene."
No! Not on the NHS they haven't. Even in the US, the alternatives don't seem that great; you have a few more biologics than us, and biologics seem to be notorious for eventually failing. But that said, the quality of care for IBD in the US does seem to be much higher - provided the insurance is good enough.