and it finally made the news

[BroomJockey]

She's not a youth. She's 21. In the USA, one is considered a legal adult at 18, and a few rights are withheld until 21.

Wrong type of youth. Youth = young person, in general. Just because it does have a legal definition doesn't mean that's what's being applied here. I don't think the classic phrase "callow youth" was meant to be applied to only anyone under 18. The definition being applied is that "Age isn't a protected status." Whether it should be protected or not should probably be a different thread, so as to not hijack this one.

[Nyoibo]

Ah, what a society we live in, where we're ruled by fear and paranoia.

I blame the government and the media.

And at the risk of getting yelled at, provided there's no medical reason for getting the tubes tied, if you really don't want to get pregnant, why not just not have sex, is it really that hard not to?

[AFPheonix]

Because sex is really fun? I know I dig it.

[the_std]

Honestly, I don't know if I would want to live without sex. But I know that I do want to live without children.

So why is it so bad for me to want a procedure that allows me the things I do want without the things I don't want?

[Nyoibo]

wanting it is not bad, but wanting is not getting, doctors don't want to perform the procedure but it seems people think that they should have to.

You know, that made more sense in my head.

[Cats]

And at the risk of getting yelled at, provided there's no medical reason for getting the tubes tied, if you really don't want to get pregnant, why not just not have sex, is it really that hard not to?

There's a double standard in play too. I don't know if this is still an issue (I know it was a few years ago, around here at least), but women tended to have to put up a fuss to get insurance to cover their birth control pills (nevermind the fact there are other benefits besides pregnancy prevention). Viarga was covered NO PROBLEM.

In principle, I agree with you (I know so many people who are "OMG I'm pregnant, how did that happen?" When they know damn well having sex, protection or not, unless you're sterile, CAN, and DOES, do that). But considering the sexual nature of human beings, and society so hell bent on that sex is the BEST THING EVER and if you're not getting it you're a loser, it isn't going to work. A therapist I spoke to at one point told me part of my problem was I wasn't getting enough sex...which I didn't even want in the first place!

It's a no win situation.



Anyway, back to another part of the discussion: I don't think docs should be FORCED into performing the procedure. I just want them to stop fucking around with what they say and just come clean and mention why they don't want to do it (like for legal or liability reasons). Telling a woman she is "too young" to decide not to have kids is bullshit. The choice to have or not have children is up to the individual/couple, NOT the doctor. If I'm old enough to HAVE kids, own a car, own a house (or pay rent), and pay a crap load of taxes, I'm going to be old enough to decide NOT to raise a family!

[AFPheonix]

There's a double standard in play too. I don't know if this is still an issue (I know it was a few years ago, around here at least), but women tended to have to put up a fuss to get insurance to cover their birth control pills (nevermind the fact there are other benefits besides pregnancy prevention). Viarga was covered NO PROBLEM.

This isn't the first time I've seen this asserted here, but I'm wondering where you're getting your information from? I work with a variety of insurance plans daily, and birth control is covered far more often than ED drugs ever are.

Frankly, I maybe saw one or two plans cover ED drugs a few years ago, and that was only by special dispensation for guys who had extenuating circumstances behind their problem. It's only been in the last year or two that I've seen plans regularly cover a few tablets per month, and even those are a rarity. More often than not men pay for those out of pocket.

Now, birth control is occasionally not covered. However, it's rarely a blanket thing over all types of the pill. The vast majority of plans will cover at least a few kinds, if not most of them. Heck, it's becoming a rarity to see rejections on the 81 day packs. When those came out it was like pulling teeth to get them covered at all.
Further, some types now fall under the $4 generic programs some pharmacies have these days. I know our chain now covers generic Ortho-Tri-Cyclen and Ortho-Cyclen.

[Boozy]

The insurance thing is one of those stories that started spreading after the introduction of ED drugs, and got out of hand. Probably because of the "outrage porn" factor. There's not much truth in it.

I despise rumours like this, because there are so many other ways that women of the world are getting screwed -- but because it's usually so subtle, no one pays attention.

[lupo pazzesco]

Re: The birth control vs Viagra debate covered by insurance. There was a big stink a few years back because of how easily ED drugs were being covered by insurance companies, and women were still paying out of pocket for birth control, becuase only a fraction of it is covered by insurance. i.e., the pill is $50/month, insurance covers some of it, and a woman pays $15/month for it, rather than insurance cover all of it. Some links highlighting the brouhaha:

From 1999

From back in 2002

Even a semi-issue during 2008 election - McCain stepped in it


My school health insurance even stopped completely covering the cost of my prescription, because they started advocating condoms were the way to go for contraception, completely disregarding that the pill is used for other conditions. That's the crux of the argument - ED is a "medical condition" that viagra treats, while birth control is seen as a lifestyle choice instead.


Back ON topic (sorry about the segue...), I don't think it's right to tell a person they don't know what they want, and thus refuse to do a procedure. If you aren't going to do it, be up front about it and say why, rather than trying to claim you know what's going on in a patient's mind, and you know what they want more than they do. Her body, her choice. You're not going to tell her she can't have a boob job because it might interfere with breast feeding, are you? (well, ok, some doctors might), so why tell her she can't tie her tubes because she might want more children later on down the line? Extreme example, I know but best I could come up with at this hour without really waking up yet.

[BlaqueKatt]

if you really don't want to get pregnant, why not just not have sex, is it really that hard not to?

The first time I tried to get my tubes tied I was 23 and married to a 22 year-old really is that a reasonable request to make?

After my son was born due to failure of both pills and a condom(at the same time oddly enough) I was actually afraid to have sex for fear of getting pregnant again(first one almost killed me), he cited that as one of the reasons for the divorce.

[Nyoibo]

The first time I tried to get my tubes tied I was 23 and married to a 22 year-old really is that a reasonable request to make?

Meh, people seem obsessed with sex, I don't see why it's so hard for people to not have sex.

[AFPheonix]

Because, especially when you're in a committed relationship, sex is part of the whole intimacy thing. It's a very strong way of bonding with your mate and it is definitely missed if it isn't there.
I know I always feel much closer to my mate mentally and emotionally after we've been that close physically. Not getting to have that connection is not optional for me, and I suspect that's the case for many other couples as well.

After all, we're not talking about people wanting their tubes tied to prevent pregnancy from random hookups, in most of the examples in this thread alone, it is about women who are with their spouse, have already had kids or physically shouldn't be bearing children who want the procedure.

[Flyndaran]

I would go so far as to say that random hookups are no body's business but those involved.
To put it more bluntly, get your morality out of my law.

[AFPheonix]

I don't disagree with you Flyn, although there is no law against tube-tying.

It's just doctors covering their asses against potential litigation from 20% of women under the age of 30 who get their tubes tied and who regret it later.
If I were a doctor, I probably not consider doing the procedure on a woman under that age if they weren't in a committed relationship or had health issues to a point where pregnancy would cause some potentially serious problems. I'd probably recommend hormonal BC or perhaps an IUD.

[Flyndaran]

Where is that statistic anyway? I have trouble believing a full one in five woman are jackasses that want others to pay for their choices.