Possible short-term solution to inequality of female sterilization

[Talon]

I've read many threads where doctors refuse to sterilize women because of some bullshit "they might change their mind" excuse. We no doubt have a handful of lawsuit-happy fools to thank for this debacle, ruining the system for the rest of us.

Then I got to thinking: what if women had one or two of their eggs surgically removed and frozen before requesting their tubes to be tied off. They'd still have an opportunity to reproduce. Would that make these doctors less afraid of lawsuits?

I'm loathe for women to be required to submit to major surgery to have their eggs removed, not to mention the cost of maintaining frozen eggs, just so they can cut through the liability bullshit. But this might be at least a temporary solution.

Then again, even in my scenario, doctors might not want to risk a lawsuit. Seems the only way out of this mess is for womens' rights groups to start launching discrimination lawsuits of their own, on behalf of women being denied the surgery. If they can kick up a greater fuss than the women who cried "lawsuit" after being sterilized, the medical industry might pull their heads out of their assess. I'd be glad to support that cause.

Also, I can't help but suspect the number of women who sued after sterilization is a lot smaller than doctors would like to believe. Greed, with a touch of old-fashioned misogyny.

[BlaqueKatt]

Then I got to thinking: what if women had one or two of their eggs surgically removed and frozen before requesting their tubes to be tied off. They'd still have an opportunity to reproduce. Would that make these doctors less afraid of lawsuits?

nope because IVF is very costly, can be invasive, not a guarantee, and you can end up with higher order multiples.plus the side effects for the drugs to make more eggs develop can be very very harsh.

[Boozy]

Someone I know is having eggs harvested to donate to another friend.

It's incredibly painful, requires a shit-load of drugs and hormones in the months leading up to the procedure, and it doesn't always work.

That would be a torturous thing to ask women to go through just so they can have their tubes tied.

[BlaqueKatt]

That would be a torturous thing to ask women to go through just so they can have their tubes tied.

not to mention-it's not like the eggs just "go away" after a tubal ligation/tubal banding-so it wouldn't have to be done before-which is why it's not a solution, it can be done after the procedure just as "easily".

[Talon]

Oh well, it seemed like a good idea at the time

So we're back to attrition-lawsuits. Oh and again, I wonder just how much money the medical industry really loses from post-sterilization mind-change suits. Is it significant, or is this just more misogyny?

[daleduke17]

How about liability waivers?

Woman signs paperwork saying that she will not sue under any circumstances except the doctor botching the procedure. Make sure the woman knows what she is signing and it's all over.

[Boozy]

That would be a reasonable solution, I think.

But sometimes I wonder if doctors are refusing these procedures due to lawsuit concerns at all. I'm sure some of these doctors are just being paternalistic.

[Gost2036]

I haven't been able to find it but I swear I remember reading a lawsuit about a women suing the doctor after having their tubes tied. The only reason it stands out though is because the doctor had a signed informed consent form. If I remember correctly (and its possible I don't) the patient won somehow. I've been trying to hunt it down but I know it been years since I read about it and it was on the internet so no guarantees.

[BlaqueKatt]

How about liability waivers?

Woman signs paperwork saying that she will not sue under any circumstances except the doctor botching the procedure. Make sure the woman knows what she is signing and it's all over.

This is already done-in some places, I had to sign one but as another poster replied it won't stop someone from suing/winning.