Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Why Do Doctors Get to Decide When a Woman Is Old Enough to Have Her 'Tubes Tied'?

By Bonnie Zylbergold, American Sexuality Magazine. Posted July 27, 2007.


Women under 30 who have made the decision not to have children often find their requests for tubal ligation procedures denied -- simply for the reason that doctors think they are "too young."

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Bonnie Zylbergold

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

This article is reprinted from American Sexuality Magazine.

"I'm sending you this email as I can't sleep after the non communication we had after dinner ... I respect your decision not to have children but what I do not understand is why you get so defensive, you never give why? What's helped you make this decision? I could tell my friends and family 10 reasons why I didn't want a child or a husband [when I was your age]. You just place a high wall between us and make statements that I don't understand and you don't explain. IE, it will never happen I'm making sure of that??? Are you having surgery? Is your partner? Are you ill? What does this statement mean?  I make a statement, "Never say never," again you get upset. Lauren*, no one knows what life holds for them... There are some decisions you'll make in life that will live with you forever and I want you to realize this. I do understand this will come with time and maturity. I guess we'll always have a wall between us due to our strong wills and selfishness."
-- love mom (Mrs. Green*)

Ever since Lauren Green was a little girl, she knew she wasn't interested in motherhood. While other girls dreamt of dolls that peed, Green fixated on everything but: "I was going to get married as soon as I graduated college, and I would design my houses and I would design my wedding, but there were never any babies involved."

She's been dealing with the ardent disapproval of friends and family ever since. Especially from mom.

According to Green, now a twenty-five year old graduate student, not so cryptic emails like the above are standard between her and her mother, whose dreams of one day being called "nana" are radically out of sync with her daughter's choice to remain child-free.

"My mother just thinks I'll change my mind. I think a lot of people think I'll change my mind," admits Green, by now all too familiar with the weary, knowing smiles of those who think they know her better than she knows herself. People, so it seems, are somewhat inept when it comes to distinguishing womanhood from motherhood.

For now (at least) mama Green needn't worry; though she's tried, and will try again, Green has thus far been denied any permanent form of birth control, specifically tubal ligation.

Tubal ligation -- known more commonly as "getting your tubes tied," -- involves closing the fallopian tubes so that the egg cannot travel from the ovary to the uterus, where, normally, a fertilized egg would develop into a fetus.

"[Planned Parenthood of Boston**] said it was much too permanent and weren't going to give it to me, plus my insurance wasn't going to cover it," recalls Green. What's more, according to Green, "It was all and only about my age." She was twenty-two at the time.

Green's experience is not that unusual. Though no actual laws have ever been put into place, most OBGYNs refuse to provide women under thirty with permanent forms of contraception. Dr. Daniel Wiener, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at McGill University in Montreal, is one such doctor.

With thirty plus years of medical practice, Dr. Wiener finds no good reason for putting otherwise healthy patients in surgery: for one, there are anesthetic risks involved. Plus, tubal ligations are considered elective surgeries (assuming the patient can use other, less invasive forms of birth control). More pressing, still, is the fear that a patient may one day change her mind. Sound familiar?

"Twenty-one to thirty, that's a big decade. A huge decade," says Dr. Wiener. "A woman who is twenty-five and says, 'That's it, I've made my choice,' I would probably just have to say, 'You're making a twenty-five year old choice. You sure that's going to be a thirty-eight or thirty-nine year old choice?'"

In other words, come back when you're older.

For Green and the growing number of women forgoing motherhood, waiting till they're thirty just isn't good enough. "It's a vast limitation of my reproductive rights," opines Green, thoroughly unimpressed with Dr. Wiener's approach. "Doctors will say, 'I don't like to prescribe elective surgeries for people who don't need them.' Whereas if you don't want to have a baby, you don't want to have a baby and it feels fairly necessary to me."

"It's an issue of agency, and who gets to make that choice," adds Christine Brooks, a post doctoral fellow studying the purposefully barren at the Institute of Trans Personal Psychology in the Bay Area.

According to Brooks, "The argument that these women might change their minds is a paternalistic argument. It questions a woman's inner knowing, her own path in life. It also suggests that women don't know what's best for them and that they have to defer to a medical authority to make life decisions."

Yet doctors routinely make life decisions for other people. And with more than three decades of practice, Dr. Wiener isn't about to question his proficiency on the subject:


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: tubal ligation, reproductive health

Bonnie Zylbergold is the assistant editor of American Sexuality magazine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Because....
Posted by: jaby on Jul 27, 2007 12:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because tubal ligation is an expensive and invasive surgery. Because reversals only result in pregnancy between 20-40 percent of the time, leaving the doctor open to lawsuits. Because even if no reversal is ever wanted, tubal ligation isn't perfect and some pregnancies will result (I suspect that as a woman gets older, the better the surgery takes, but that would just be my knowledge of science and deductive prowess, I have nothing to cite that this is the case). The resulting pregnancy will also result in lawsuits. Because if anything goes wrong in the surgery, that will result in lawsuits. Because many insurance companies don't cover the cost of reversals and, in many cases, don't cover the cost of sterilization in the first place unless there are already children or some other valid medical reason. Because doctor's believe that there are plenty of other options that a woman can take to avoid pregnancy (hormonal, IUD, cervical cap, etc) that don't involve cutting you up. And, in case you didn't notice, doctors, at least those doctors who are not plastic surgeons, will almost always try to talk you out of voluntary cutting (again, costs, lawsuits, etc).

Does it suck, sure it does. Elective surgery is elective surgery. If we allow 18 year olds to get ass/boob/pec/calf implants, then we should let them tie themselves off. But, IMHO, that is a problem unto itself too. Surgery isn't some game, not some commodity; it is serious, sometimes deadly, often irreversible. It is the permanent maiming of your body, not to be entered into lightly. Not to suggest that these women aren't serious about their choice with regards to not having kids, but the attitude towards surgery is just so cavalier, like surgery never poses problems of its own.

To cut to the chase... I think where Alternet sees heavy-handed paternalism, the doctors only see the money, the possible lawsuits, whether or not insurance will cover it, etc, etc. Come on now, we all know, it is all about the money, honey. All the time. Always. Repeat after me everyone, "It is always about the money! It is always about the money!" Always, and we know this, this shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. If a doctor thinks there is a chance that he/she might get sued on down the road, he/she is going to run screaming from the situation, leaving a trail of IUD's, condoms and cervical caps behind them.

Also, Alternet, in the interest of fairness, I would like to know whether or not young men are having troubles getting doctors to perform vasectomies on them or if, as I suspect, young men aren't really that interested in having vasectomies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's about control Posted by: Sushi
» A couple of things... Posted by: mjabele
» RE: It's about control Posted by: drband36
» RE: It's about control Posted by: jaby
» RE: It's about control Posted by: jaby
» RE: It's about control Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Because.... Posted by: Leman
» RE: Because.... Posted by: jaby
» RE: Because.... Posted by: Leman
» RE: Because.... Posted by: jaby
» RE: Because.... Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Because.... Posted by: dudelette
» RE: Because.... Posted by: Leman
» RE: Because.... Posted by: dudelette
» RE: Because.... Posted by: Leman
» RE: Because.... Posted by: Timba
» RE: Because.... Posted by: jaby
» RE: Because.... Posted by: Sushi
» RE: Because.... Posted by: jaby
» RE: Because.... Posted by: mjabele
» I can't help but add... Posted by: mjabele
» Vasectomies Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: Vasectomies Posted by: jaby
» RE: Vasectomies Posted by: drband36
» RE: Vasectomies Posted by: jaby
» RE: Vasectomies Posted by: gnocchi
» RE: Vasectomies Posted by: Sushi
» RE: Vasectomies Posted by: Sushi
» Men and vasectomies Posted by: mhoffman81
» RE: Men and vasectomies Posted by: steelwinged
When I was 27, I had my tubes tied...
Posted by: browsercat on Jul 27, 2007 1:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That was 26 years ago. The physician insisted I go through 'counseling' at Planned Parenthood to 'make sure' I really wanted to have the procedure done; CYA in case I 'changed my mind'. I never changed my mind, and never had kids.

I think that for the majority of women [and men - they can get vasectomies, too], 18 is too young to make a decision of such consequence, but the only other option is birth control that can and does fail. When they spend as much money on making contraceptives reliable as they do on drugs to keep mens' dicks hard, maybe women who don't want kids won't feel that they have no other choice than to resort to tubal ligations, and will be able, if they wish, to delay the procedure until later. Until then, doctors need to work with their patients to make sure that every possible option is on the table for discussion; anyone who demonstrates the maturity and self-knowledge to make the decision should be able to chose what is best for without interference, including a tubal ligation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about all the other decisions docs make for us?
Posted by: heid on Jul 27, 2007 3:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about all the other decisions doctors make for us without informing us of the risks or even likelihood of success?

How many people undergo epidural steroid injections without being told that it can never heal back pain (though it can hide it temporarily), but can cause horrific and unending damage and pain? How many undergo spine surgeries without ever being told of the enormous risks they're facing? How many are given drugs for so-called prevention of osteoporosis, but never informed that they actually cause it? How many are given drugs without being told of all the potential dangers associated?

How many are pressed into giving their children vaccinations for relatively minor childhood diseases without first being told of the risks of death from the vaccinations themselves or the long term risks of degenerative diseases?

Chest, produced by the American College of Chest Physicians, has recently published that up to double the number of children have developed asthma as a direct result of antibiotic, but how many doctors will inform parents of this?

The AMA has recently published information indicating that up to 30,000 extra cases of cancer are developed each year because of CT scans. But how many people are pressed into this procedure as being without risk?

These procedures and drugs that the medical system presses on people without even giving halfway decent explanations of the risks - or even how likely or unlikely the hoped-for benefit will be achieved - are the real issue in medicine today. Doctors presume far too much. They press treatments on us without telling us of the risks, often without even bothering to check themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not me Posted by: phaedrus
You lefties and force...
Posted by: BJT on Jul 27, 2007 3:59 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not understand why anyone should think that doctors ought to be forced to perform a surgery they do not want to perform.

Wouldn't you then complain about the poor job he does and insist on some kind of law against bad surgeries? When does your quest for government fulfillment of all your wishes come to a stop? When is there going to be enough force and control over people to make you happy?

This has got to be the weirdest political opinion site on the Internet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You lefties and force... Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: You lefties and force... Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Here's why Posted by: Sushi
» RE: Here's why Posted by: karyse
» RE: You lefties and force... Posted by: Ms. DuFontagne
» RE: You lefties and force... Posted by: talkville
naoma
Posted by: Naoma on Jul 27, 2007 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had my "tubes tied" after I had one child. What I heard was "Wonder if your child died?" Well, if she did I could not REPLACE HER with another. I only wanted one child and one I had and thus the elective surgery. My daughter is now 37 and I've never, ever regretted my decision.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: naoma Posted by: NaomiC
Still it could be worse.
Posted by: Cruella on Jul 27, 2007 5:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We've gone backwards ... sort of
Posted by: terradea on Jul 27, 2007 5:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had my tubes tied when I was 23. I had already had 3 children and did not want anymore. That was in 1983. The first hospital refused to perform the surgery because they required my husband's permission and he wouldn't give it. My husband, however, could get a vasectomy without my permission.

I had the procedure done under a local anesthetic (little risk) and was able to watch what was being done inside my own body via a telescope-like device. I have not regretted my decision; in fact, I highly recommend it to every woman who does not want children. Women know what they want, yet they are treated like children or second-class citizens. It's worse (in some ways) today than it was in 1983.

Young women have become lazy, in that they have refused to fight for rights they believe they already have. Attention young women: there is no "Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)." That means you do not have equal rights with men according to our Constitution. If you do not fight for equal pay, reproductive rights, contraception, health care, etc., you will not get them. Stop being lazy. You need to march in the streets, just like those brave feminists before us did.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

my body, myself
Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming on Jul 27, 2007 5:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the instant I figured out that having children was optional, I knew that I didn't want them. Never. Born without the maternal gene and never interested in dolls or tea parties, I tell people that once I was married I used to take two or three birth control pills a day just to be sure.
I also had serious, menstrual problems that limited and practically consumed my life. I was lucky to get two and a half to three weeks of normal life in a month; the rest of the time was spent in agony and a pool of vomit.
I was in my early twenties (this was the 60s) when I started trying to have a hysterectomy. I'm surprised I didn't go bald from the male doctors patting me on the head and telling me I'd change my mind "when I grew up", as though all I could possibly want was babies and was too young to know myself. They also told me that the dysmenorrhea would go away when I had a baby. Not even the prospect of ending the pain could convince me that was a good idea.
My husband didn't want children, though my mother-in-law badgered us mercilessly about starting a family. (We had started a family--we got married.)
By my thirties, when I had developed a good career and gotten divorced, I *still* didn't want children; I *still* had disabling menstrual problems around which I had to live my life, and I *still* couldn't find a doctor who would agree to a medical procedure to cure a serious medical problem on the off chance I'd later develop a late-life whim to become a mother.
It took early-stage cervical cancer (which I wouldn't had gotten if I'd been able to jettison my cervix as I wanted) and other nasty conditions before I could find a doctor who agreed that my vestigal womb probably was more trouble than it as worth. I was 42 years old, single, celibate--and even *then* I had to go through counseling to convince them that I wouldn't regret not longer being "a whole woman"--and I wasn't willing to suffer through until menopause fixed everything.
Nine days after a total hysterectomy, I was back to work and could plan things all month long, *finally* free of a condition that had nearly ruined my life--needlessly. In my next life, I'm going to have a hysterectomy when I'm 12 years old, even if I have to do it myself with an x-acto knife.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: my body, myself Posted by: maribelle
The physician-patient relationship...
Posted by: mjabele on Jul 27, 2007 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is not akin to the soda machine, where you just pop in a dollar, press a button, and get whatever flavor Pepsi you want on demand.

Frankly, were I a surgeon, I wouldn't necessarily dismiss a request from a sincere and thoughtful young woman to have her tubes tied at age 20 or 25, whether or not she'd had kids. On the other hand, given that women (and men) DO change their minds - I have an HIV-positive woman in my practice right now who's trying to get her tubal reversed - I wouldn't necessarily perform surgery on all comers, either.

The fact is that patients do change their minds, and OB/GYN surgeons undoubtedly see a large number of such cases during their practice careers - something not really brought out in this article. Moreover, they've also undoubtedly dealt with the occasional complications of such surgery, and therefore realize more acutely that there is an actual small, but real, component of risk. Beyond the simple issues of liability, most physicians don't like the idea of doing something electively to a patient that might potentially be harmful, or simply a potential cause of regret (and a repeat surgery) later on.

Bottom line is that every encounter between a patient and her physician is an individual one, and that the patient needs to respect the physician's perspective just as the physician should respect hers. In the final analysis, there's no "requirement" that a physician provide a service to a patient that he or she feels may be inappropriate or dangerous, based on current medical knowledge or practice guidelines, or even simply on his or her own previous personal experience or ethical perspective. However, if an agreement as to what should be done can't be reached, it IS the physician's ethical responsibility to provide the patient with access to a second opinion, as well as routine medical care until a new provider can be found.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women like Lauren Green
Posted by: gistre on Jul 27, 2007 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
should be allowed to get their tubes tied so they don't infest the world with more self-absorbed, shallow women like themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Exactly! Posted by: Curio
» RE: Women like Lauren Green Posted by: drband36
» Thank you for your rebuttal Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» THANK YOU DRBAND36 Posted by: flakkerzmom
» for flakkerzmom Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: for flakkerzmom Posted by: Sushi
» RE: gistre, sweetie...lighten up. Posted by: meli-mello
MORE DRAMA AND GROSS EXAGERATION
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jul 27, 2007 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many women regret having a tubal ligation? I would like a number please. This is more "I know what's best for you", well no you don't. Women have to put a stop to being told what to do. If we want an opinion, we'll ask. A request for birth control pills or tubal ligationis is not about a moral evaluation. It's about a personal well thought out decision, that others should respect. No more sermons please. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

my body, my mind, my decision
Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming on Jul 27, 2007 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Each case is different, and doctors should be sure that the patient understands all the consequences, immediate and long term. However, an intelligent, well-informed woman--even a fairly young one--who wants to make her own reproductive decisions shouldn't be prevented from that because she might change her mind someday. If she changes her mind, that's not the doctor's fault.
With all this concern about the possible side effects (oh, it's dangerous, it's surgery, you might catch cold), has no one considered the side effects of unwanted pregnancies? Abortion, child abuse, miserable families?
There probably are more people who had children and regretted it than those who decide later permanent contraception wasn't the best for them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Double damned, I guess. Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming
» RE: Double damned, I guess. Posted by: mobile68
» RE: my body, my mind, my decision Posted by: VannaLaRoche
What About Men?
Posted by: Bab5nutz on Jul 27, 2007 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What if a single male in his early 20s with no children rolled into his doctor and told him that he wanted a vasectomy? That he never wanted to be a father?
would the doctor try to talk him out of it? Would there be an insistance on counselling, and waiting until later?
I am curious to know the answer to this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What About Men? Posted by: drband36
» RE: What About Men? Posted by: porpentine
This article would sound like an exaggeration...
Posted by: g on Jul 27, 2007 8:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... if it wasn't for the fact that physicians' refusal to perform tubal ligation on young women is part of a more general pattern. Arguments against abortion now often sing the tune of "women don't know what's good for them" (right, Justice Stevens?). Even pharmacists take it upon themselves to overrule physicians and refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. There is a pattern of individuals in the health care professions who think that women need guidance when it comes to sexuality and reproduction. They think they know what is normal and good, and if your choices do not map into their notion of "normal and good," they don't think twice before making the choice for you. I have been on the pill for years to control my endometriosis, and I had to deal with an aggressive substitute physician who refused to write me a prescription for the pill, thus dismissing my health problem and overruling the opinion of another doctor-this without even examining me. I complained, and my doctor went ballistic, rightly so. So, yes, women should not take it for granted that they are in charge of their reproductive choices. As for the physician in one of the previous post, being able to block access to drugs and treatment give doctors and pharmacists a lot of power. They should not use it to enforce lifestyle choices. Too many health care professionals do. This from a 41 years old, child free.
By the way: in a world that is overpopulated, in a country living an unsustainable lifestyle, I get really pissed when I hear that child-free people are the selfish ones. Yeah, giving in to the urge to spread your worthy genes around is really altruistic. You are such great people that we need more of you in the next generation. Get a grip.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» My bad Posted by: g
A different but related experience
Posted by: alphakat on Jul 27, 2007 8:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recently found out I have a large (actually, in my doc's words, "HUGE!") cyst on one of my ovaries and it must be removed. When I was meeting with the surgeon, she asked if I would like any other procedures done at the same time. I didn't know what she meant, so she went on to suggest a hysterectomy. I am 37 and don't have or want kids, but I don't want a surgeon removing parts of me that aren't dysfunctional. She wasn't trying to pressure me but did say that women will request it because they are sick of dealing with having a period. It's 'convenient' to just have a hysterectomy. huh?!?!

I just found it incredibly weird that the surgeon was so nonchalant about it. I'm sure if a man required the removal of one of his testicles, they wouldn't offer to lop off his penis and give him a tube so he could pee directly into a bag rather than have the inconvenience of going to the bathroom???

It seems my experience was very different from the women in this article. Granted, I am older, but there was a completely different attitude at my clinic. They were more than willing to offer permanent 'solutions' that I didn't need or ask for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A different but related experience Posted by: Ms. DuFontagne
» prophylaxis Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming
» but they are used daily Posted by: alphakat
» as a matter of fact Posted by: wildgeese
Knowing the limits
Posted by: Veronique on Jul 27, 2007 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am 64 years old. I have one (two by September) grandchildren. I had my first son when I was 21. My husband shot himself dead 4 years later and I was pregnant with our second child.

I aborted, with the help of two psychiatrists who reported that it would be socially disadvantageous for me to have that second child. The abortion was clinical and no one took into account my feelings. It was a clinical affair. I don't have a ptroblem with that.

I had another son some 7 years later. Both boys are utterly committed to each other. I consider that a good outcome.

After the birth of my second child, I decided that I had reached my limit. I applied to my docotor for a referral to a hospital for sterilisation. I was 29. I ended up visiting 6 doctors before I got my spiel together, enough to convince the 6th one to refer me to a gynecologist.

This took place in 1972. What amazed me was that these doctors (all men, BTW) tried to tell me that I would marry again and want more children. I tried to explain that our planet was already over crowded by humans and that I didn't want to fall prey to the emotional (and genetic) push to reproduce yet again. I was trying to nip this feeling in the bud!!

I got my tubal ligation thanks to the 6th doctor (I had my spiel pretty well perfect by the time I saw him and I was adamant anyway and he was either swayed by my arguments or just wanted me out of his office rooms - I would't have been a publicist's shoe strap).

I have never regretted that decision - I do not waste tears of self-recrimmination over my choice. I do not have childen who are unable to live in the world in which they find themselves. However, I feel for my grandchidlren. They will not have the privileged life that my generation has had. I find this sad.

I now look in horror at our global population figures. Our wishes and desires to have the best that we can see, regardless of the impact we have on the physical world in which we live and understand that we still haven't the slightest clue of the damage we are doing to our habitat.

We appear to be programmed to pass our genes onto the next generarion. I contend that this has more to do with our unbridled and mis-understood desire to increase our numbers when it is clearly not thought out in any rational way and is certainly not in the interests of our species or those other species that we can call cousins.

My despair has to do with our inability to allow other speices to enjoy life as we know it. How many thousands of our current co-existent species have to die before we wake up to the destruction we are imposing on this pale blue dot (as seen by the Voyager on its trip though the universe. The planet that we call home.

a bit of a ramble - who cares - not I

I, maybe, have 30 years to go before I kark it. That's my grandchildren's generation, trying to curry monetary favour with other nations in order to secure Australia's so-called freedom. LOL.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Knowing the limits Posted by: drband36
» Suicide...sorry Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» Suicide...sorry Posted by: veggiegrrrl
A Bigger Question
Posted by: pdxstudent on Jul 27, 2007 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that this article easily enough raises the question "Why are doctors allowed to decide if we get permanent contraception?" That one is obvious enough: because we let them, and at a certain level want them to. We should move from there, though, and ask the more interesting question underpinning the whole article: "what ideological forces are shaping the doctor's decision?"

If doctors are bound by their Hippocratic oath to do no harm, does this not also mean in the diffuse situation of giving a patient permanant contraceptive surgery? The obvious response is that denying this surgery is in the best care of the patient as they might "change their mind." This is not satisfying. What this kind of response implies is that the normative rules of female-existence should be given a fair chance at conscripting another young body. Anyone who we deem to be an adult, which itself is a frothy debate, and is willing to transgress such a strongly pushed norm by requesting the surgery, is already in a childless mindset that is unlikely to change

What's more is so what if they change their minds.? It is ludicrious to suggest that doctors are in financial danger, as a contract easily lifts any long-term responsibility on the doctor, lest he simply botchs the job. Anyone electing for that kind of surgery is implicitly making that pact with the doctor, that they aren't going to want children, so why not explicitly, as it is obviously unreasonably unfair to ask the doctor to remain liable for a lifetime of what should be a ONE TIME DECISION - to not or to maybe have children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Paternalism is Right
Posted by: Gravitas on Jul 27, 2007 9:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am tired of doctors overstepping their moral boundaries. Medicine has a long history of paternalism. Years ago, they gave women hysterctomies and considered them successful if they made women better homemakers. I don't want my doctor trying to force ANY moral judgments on me, including the whole health nag "healthy" lifestyle bit. Personally, my doctor is not my spiritual guide, shrink, life couch, friend or confessor. Any decision I make I have already given much thought too. Their values are not necessarily my values. The doctor is simply a medical technician paid to perform a service. BTW, I didn't have my tubes tied, but NOT having children was one decision I will NEVER regret.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No age limit on vasectomies
Posted by: porpentine on Jul 27, 2007 9:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had a vasectomy performed at the age of 24... No one even suggested that I was too young. Why do they seem to think that women under 30 are too young to make the same decision?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» why does the SCOTUS Posted by: goatini
» RE: why does the SCOTUS Posted by: VZEQICVA
I got my tubal ligation in 1983 when I was 21 years old.
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jul 27, 2007 10:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I got my tubal ligation in 1983 when I was 21 years old. Planned Parenthood had a program for low income women for 10.00 co-pay and I had counseling before a 30 day waiting period to make sure. I am 45 years old now and have no regrets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I totally agree
Posted by: razzmichi on Jul 27, 2007 11:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wish I could afforded to do this when I was 20 years younger. I knew from my teens on that I never wanted children. Faced years and years of "Oh, don't you want one of these?" from friends and relatives with newborns. Um .... no. I knew it then and I know it now that I'm 45. I suppose the cost of all the years of contraceptives might have paid for the procedure. Unfortunately was never in the position to pay out that sum all at once.

But I agree. I knew it when I was young and never changed my mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Best decision I ever made before I was 30!
Posted by: NaomiC on Jul 27, 2007 1:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back in 1972, I had my tubes tied, when my second child was 20-months old. I was 26. And I have never once regretted it!

But back then, there were still "sterilization boards" at hospitals. Essentially, they passed judgement on whether sterilization (even if medically necessary for cancer-related reasons) was "appropriate". So, even if a woman had cervical or uterine cancer, it was presented (pre-surgery) to the board for a pro-forma approval.

But my first (and second) request for tubal ligation was denied. Why? For three reasons: because I was too young (25); had too few children (I wasn't desperate enough??? See: Andrea Yates); and my husband made too much money (WTF? His salary was $11,000/year!).

Like Lauren, I wasn't good mother material. And like Lauren, my mother wanted grandchildren. So I had my daughter, and 20 months later, I had my son. Both pregnancies were difficult (or maybe my inner reluctance was making them difficult). I was totally sure that I wasn't cut out for the big family (six children; I was oldest) I grew up in. Totally, absolutely positively certain sure! And I had convinced my doctor of this - hence the two presentations to the board.

After the second denial, he found that there was one hospital in our area that didn't have a sterilization board; he made arrangements for me to get a "second opinion". Doctor #2 agreed to do the surgery (and by removing my appendix, the insurance company paid for it!). Fait accompli!

I'm 61 now. And I repeat: I have never regretted that decision - not even once! My husband and I divorced 15 years later, and I remarried some years after that. When my new husband tentatively approached the subject of "another baby", I nicely made clear my position, "Nope, ain't no way, fuggetaboutit!"

My body is my own. I make the decisions about what goes into it and what comes out. In the late 60s-early 70s, we were in the days of Zero Population Growth, early legal abortion and well-established birth-control programs. HOW WE GREW AWAY FROM ALL THAT IS A DAMNED CRYING SHAME!

I Blame the Patriarchy and, especially, RELIGION for 95% of today's problems. Bite me, xianists!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is just a logical conclusion....
Posted by: Bearzerker on Jul 27, 2007 2:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... to societies limitations on a womans choice of reproductive health...
even if some think its a bad choice!

Everybody has the right to decide what they can do to there own body, as long as competent authorities agree... [yes, family is a competent authority... politicians it seems these days are not]

this includes;
end of life decisions,
drug ingestion [medical and recreational]
reproductive health
Religious rites [Flagellation and Christ emulating Crucifixions come to mind]
plus numerous other reasons...

Just think about the hypocrisy of the so called "war on drugs"... and then imagine the savings to mind, body and spirit, and the overall lessoning of crime if people just accepted the inalienable right of the person to do do to their body what "they" decided.
Desperate people will do desperate things... to themselves and to others if they see no other way, and people "will" do to themselves whatever, regardless...
...plus theres the old supply and demand argument... where theres a demand theres a supply and vice a versa!

Just stop ...and think for a minute... and you will realize that this is all just a futile argument over social semantics!

My question to all who read this is,
what right does a "society" have over what a person can do to there own body? and
isn't there a guarantee under the constitution preventing other peoples from interfering in another persons inalienable rights? rights which include the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.


just a thought for your day

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bravo... well said... Posted by: Bearzerker
» RE: Bravo... well said... Posted by: talkville
A COMMENT ON THE COMMENTS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jul 27, 2007 2:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope this is read by lots and lots of people. I think I'll print out the article and the comments and figure out who I want to mail them to. Maybe NARAL or The Nation Magazine. Forty years ago was bad enough but it still goes on. Since when did moral judgement become a part of practicing medicine ? One thing is for sure. It's nice to be nice, but groveling to have a prescription filled or a request for a tubal ligation is degrading and has to stop. Enough already. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

for Gistre...
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jul 27, 2007 10:21 PM