Double standard on Sterlization

[BlaqueKatt]

I'll try and find the link, but I think that there is an option on both male and female sterilization that uses slightly different equipment, but also allows for reversal. (I think it's a coil or something that gets inserted in the Fallopian tubes)

nope that coil makes it totally impossible for a reversal-

"Additionally, the Essure hysteroscopic sterilization procedure is not reversible. Because the fallopian tube tissue and coil implants grow together to create a closed passage, the micro-inserts cannot be surgically removed without damaging the fallopian tubes."

from the contraception. com website again

[Peppergirl]

Trying to figure out if your patient is ready for it is one thing. Trying to talk them out of it and refuse is another, especially when your counter arguments suck.

That was exactly my problem. I didn't have issue with the fact that he wanted to 'make sure I was ready' in my mid-20s. It was his ridiculous counter arguments and final refusal to do the procedure, because I might change my mind.

He was also aware that I was RELIEVED that I had the miscarriage and that we'd been considering abortion or adoption as an alternative. I was apparently adult enough to consider THOSE options, but not enough of one to realize that, after I miscarried, I didn't EVER want to go through that decision again.

My current OB-GYN is a gem. Ultimately I'm glad I switched, even though it was just less bullshit to just let my now ex-husband get it done...I know my current OB wouldn't have given me shit.

And for the record, my kids are grown - im 40 years old, and I do not for ONE day regret not having any more kids. Take THAT, Dr. Fink.

I guess with a name like Dr. Fink, you're bound to be an asshole.

[guywithashovel]

Like some others who have posted, I have heard of some instances where guys have had to do battle with a doctor in order to get a vasectomy. But perhaps it really does happen more often with women.

I think it's good that doctors want to talk with patients about this to make sure they understand it and are really ready for it. But in the end, whether or not the patient ends up regretting it or whatever should be the patient's issue, not the doctor.

And how could anyone go back ten years later and sue the doctor over this? What legal basis would they have for it?

[DesignFox]

<snip>
And how could anyone go back ten years later and sue the doctor over this? What legal basis would they have for it?

Welcome to America! If there's a profit to be made, there's someone willing to try it.

I think those lawyers, that judge, and all those jurors who ruled in favor of whatever idiots have done that ought to be smacked around with a salmon.

"Oh, you're suing the doctor for performing a procedure you specifically requested?"

BAM.

You get smacked with a salmon!

Seriously, I understand a doctor's concerns. I can understand making the patient fully aware of the consequences of their actions. I can even see many doctors not wanting to perform the irreversible surgery when they feel that less permanent and, statistically speaking, nearly equally effective manners of birth control exist.

But once all that information is given. Once all the paperwork is in order. If a person or their insurance company is willing to pay for the surgery, the doctor should go ahead with it. OR if they are uncomfortable performing the surgery, they should recommend their patient to another doctor.

I'd rather see someone have their tubes tied or have their bits snipped if that is what they prefer. They are preventing a lot of potential heart ache on the part of themselves, their partner or whatever unwanted child might have resulted had they not been sterilized.

How is that possibly an irresponsible decision?

Me. I'm too indecisive. I know that my mind can very well change at any stage of my life. So, I layer protections. For me, getting the tubes tied is too permanent. I'm pretty positive at this stage of my life that I don't want kids and never will. But if I change my mind in a couple years, at least I know I've got an out. And if I don't...well once I hit a certain age, it may be something to consider. Or maybe by that time I'll be married and my partner will get things taken care of on his end. Who knows. I sure don't. But I don't begrudge other people their life decisions when it comes to that. When it comes to having children, you have to do what is right well...for the children! If you don't want them, and you know it deep down that there is no way in hell you ever will, no one should deny you the treatment you seek.

And if you get the procedure and then change your mind- suck it up and adopt for crying out loud! Don't sue the doctor because you're a fruit loop.

[linguist]

But once all that information is given. Once all the paperwork is in order. If a person or their insurance company is willing to pay for the surgery, the doctor should go ahead with it. OR if they are uncomfortable performing the surgery, they should recommend their patient to another doctor.

i keep seeing people blame the doctor, but quite often it's not the doctor's decision, but the the doctor's malpractice insurance that won't allow them to perform the procedure unless it's medically necessary. in some cases, it's the hospital's insurance that won't allow it, so even referring to another doctor won't help, if they work out of the same hospital.

[Cats]

i keep seeing people blame the doctor, but quite often it's not the doctor's decision, but the the doctor's malpractice insurance that won't allow them to perform the procedure unless it's medically necessary. in some cases, it's the hospital's insurance that won't allow it, so even referring to another doctor won't help, if they work out of the same hospital.

If that is the case, why not be straight up honest about it? Even if they can't offer some alternate suggestions, I'd rather hear the truth than exuses.

If a doc says, "I'm sorry, I cannot perform the operation for legal/liability reasons" I'd understand a HELL of a lot more than "You're too young to decide to not have kids". Doctors should NOT be lying to their patients about medical procedures. If there's a legal reason why they can't do it, what's wrong with simply saying so? What is the purpose of beating around the bush and pissing off your patients?

[Peppergirl]

If that is the case, why not be straight up honest about it? Even if they can't offer some alternate suggestions, I'd rather hear the truth than exuses.

If a doc says, "I'm sorry, I cannot perform the operation for legal/liability reasons" I'd understand a HELL of a lot more than "You're too young to decide to not have kids". Doctors should NOT be lying to their patients about medical procedures. If there's a legal reason why they can't do it, what's wrong with simply saying so? What is the purpose of beating around the bush and pissing off your patients?

Forgive me for lapsing into immature talk, but WORDY-WORD, McWORD to this!!!

Just come out and say so instead of attempting to make strong, competent AWESOME women feel like backwards children.

[joe hx]

wow, i didn't even realize this was an issue... it is her body, her right. pro-life, antiabortionists shouldn't care because there's no baby.

if a woman had this procedure and then decided she wanted kids, couldn't she just adopt?

[DesignFox]

<snip>couldn't she just adopt?

But then, OMGZ if wouldn't be HERS!!!!!eleventy!!!

I never thought of the insurance angle on things...but I have to agree with the others who stated that the doctor should just tell them the truth..."I'm sorry Ms. X, we cannot perform this procedure as our insurance company only covers life threatening circumstances" is a much better answer than, "You're just too young! You'll change your mind!"

[Slytovhand]

Firstly, the insurance argument is bogus. By that, I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying that it is just as irrelevant as the argument put forth by the (I presume most here are referring to male) doctors...

It's still a double standard - whether it's from the doctors directly, or from the insurance companies... it's still a crock!

Secondly, I had a friend who was over 40 and wanted a snip. He had a doctor really give him the run around on it ("Maybe you'll find someone who wants kids, maybe crap, maybe some other crap that I'm spitting out my butt..."). In the end, he had it done. So, just pointing out 1 counter example (which is no doubt so insignificantly in the minority it doesn't count...)

And thirdly, can we please lay off hitting moronic people with salmon... after all, what's it ever done to deserve such a fate???

[boringscreenname]

I'm worried that I'm going to have to deall with this myself in a couple years. Had the first kiddo at 23, and we want one more in 3-4 years which means I'll be 26-27 at the time the second one is born. After that I don't want more kids.

[pile of monkeys]

I think it's a lot easier if you've already had kids. The main argument I got was that they wouldn't perform the surgery on a woman who hadn't yet had children. Because, you know, clearly that means you're confused if you want to be able to prevent having children if you don't want them, not have to have one and then prove you don't want more. Naturally, women are not to be trusted with major life decisions if those decisions go against the social norms of "breed first, ask questions later."

Sorry. I'm still bitter.

[Akasa]

I was lucky. My OB/GYN only asked me if I was sure I didn't want kids 3x and was obviously satisfied with my "I've spent my childhood raising kids, I want my adult life to be fore me. Besides even as a kid I didn't even play with baby dolls. Never wanted a child of my own."
Having a history of endometriosis and cysts helped push it through insurance.
(I had a full hysterectomy. If I ever get preggers I'll sue.)