and it finally made the news

[BlaqueKatt]

doctor denies woman tubal ligation due to her age

"No, I won't do it," Dr. Kayode Ayodele told her unequivocally. "You're too young."

A tubal ligation was simply not even open for discussion. He told her that she might get involved with someone else down the road and regret her decision. He told her it's a permanent sterilization method and he's had so many patients wanting it reversed, that he won't even consider performing one now on any woman under 25.


Seymour's family doctor was not surprised by the obstetrician's refusal. He warned her that while he would keep looking, he doubted he would be able to find any ob/gyn willing to perform the procedure.

All those from the other thread saying you can't believe it happens-it happens, and it's sexist pure and simple.


even the comments are sexist-agreeing with the doctor and saying she may change her mind, she is too young to decide, he should get a vasectomy(he's 2 years older than her), or they should use another form of BC-the article says the man doesn't want a vasectomy(his choice not theirs) and she doesn't want to take the risk of another child-total BS

[MaggieTheCat]

I just skimmed the article, and there are SEVERAL things that I find grossly wrong with this!

First of all, she already has 2 kids. It's not like she's never going to experience being a parent.

Second of all, she's married. I understand that people get divorced all the time, or have relationships outside of marriage, and I don't want to run the topic off track, but seriously, the dr's. comment about "she might get involved with someone else down the road" strikes me as REALLY inappropriate. He apparently has NO consideration for her husband or that they talked this through together and that their marriage is going to last.

Third of all, all of those things aside, I think it's fine for a dr to seriously suggest for a woman to wait to get her tubes tied, or warn her that many women (20% according to the article, which really isn't that "many") who get their tubes tied before age 30 regret it. However, to outright refuse to do the procedure, even after all the warnings and suggestions, when the patient still wants to go through with it? Isn't that some kind of age discrimination?

Seriously, this pisses me off. One of my ex-boyfriends had a vasectomy when he was about 25 and was told all the warnings and everything about meeting someone someday, or changing his mind someday, but they still allowed him to go through with it when he said he knew what he wanted.

[anriana]

Third of all, all of those things aside, I think it's fine for a dr to seriously suggest for a woman to wait to get her tubes tied, or warn her that many women (20% according to the article, which really isn't that "many") who get their tubes tied before age 30 regret it. However, to outright refuse to do the procedure, even after all the warnings and suggestions, when the patient still wants to go through with it? Isn't that some kind of age discrimination?

As far as I know youth aren't a protected category in Canada and it is perfectly legal to discriminate against them.

I do think it should be legally required for doctors to give some forms of medical care, but elective surgery isn't one of the ones I would want under that distinction. It would be nice if doctors trusted women to make up their own minds and allowed them to deal with the consequences if they later changed their minds, but it shouldn't be legally required.

[joe hx]

the only thing i can think of justifying this is if the women who wanted the procedure reversed were extreme SCs or tried to file lawsuits, but i saw no evidence of this

[anriana]

the only thing i can think of justifying this is if the women who wanted the procedure reversed were extreme SCs or tried to file lawsuits, but i saw no evidence of this

My understanding is that several women have filed and won lawsuits for tube tying performed at their request when they were young.

[Nyoibo]

(20% according to the article, which really isn't that "many")

I'd consider 20% a significant portion, plus, we all know it only takes one to ruin it for everyone.

[Android Kaeli]

If a woman wants to get her tubes tied and knows the risks before hand, I don't see any reason why she shouldn't be allowed not to have the procedure done. Yes there's a chance that she may regret it later in life but she shouldn't have to be held back on the "What If..." line of thought.

[Slytovhand]

Which says that 80% isn't a significant enough number to 'prove' that women can actually make rational decisions when it comes to their own body... <sigh>

Sue! Get a male to walk in and request a vasectomy, and have it approved.. the sue the bastards for discrimination!

[linguist]

Which says that 80% isn't a significant enough number to 'prove' that women can actually make rational decisions when it comes to their own body... <sigh>

Sue! Get a male to walk in and request a vasectomy, and have it approved.. the sue the bastards for discrimination!

On the first point, 20% is a very statistically significant number. If 20% of the patients in a drug trial were to experience significant illness or death, do you think that drug would ever be approved, even if it worked wonders for the other 80%?

On the second point, good luck finding any ob/gyn willing to perform a vasectomy.

[anriana]

If a woman wants to get her tubes tied and knows the risks before hand, I don't see any reason why she shouldn't be allowed not to have the procedure done. Yes there's a chance that she may regret it later in life but she shouldn't have to be held back on the "What If..." line of thought.

It's not that doctors aren't "allowing" women to get the procedure - it's that the doctors aren't willing to do it themselves. Should doctors be forced to perform elective surgery that there is a 20% chance of later being sued for?


Your statement really reminds me of a situation I run into at work all the time:
Me: I'm sorry, we don't support Outlook. I can show you some documents on our site or give you Microsoft's number.
SC: OMG WTF I AM NOT ALLOWED TO USE OUTLOOK OOOOMMMMMGGGGGG
Me: You are allowed to use it, you would just need to look elsewhere for support.

Obviously not as dramatic or SCy, but yeah.

[AFPheonix]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't vasectomies a lot more easily reversable than tied tubes?

If a full 1/5th of my patients were to regret a surgery, I'd probably be pretty picky about who I performed it on, too, especially if there are safe, reversable forms of bc available to women.

[Flyndaran]

After thinking a bit, I find the most disturbing issue more practical.
Physicians should treat based on the individual patient, not what statistics say about the average woman.
If 20%, (eventhough I really doubt that number), of some ethnicity regretted an operation, would it be acceptable for doctors to based medical decisions on that?

[DesignFox]

Well, I'm glad the issue is out in open.

I don't think doctors should *legally* be required to perform the surgery. Afterall, if by law they have to do it, then the patient changes her mind, then she can legally sue the doctor...what kind of bullshit is that?

I think the issue would be alleviated if the patient didn't get away with suing the doctor because she changes her mind.

[AdminAssistant]

I just wish other, more permanent forms were more accessible. I've been on the pill for nearly ten years. I'd like to switch to something else, like an IUD or something, but I've been told that even those are tricky for single gals who haven't had kids.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I think with reversal, it depends on whether the tubes are clipped or snipped; I don't know much about it, but think the clipped tubes, as in a clip snapped on them, can be reversed but not the ones cut and tied.