and it finally made the news

[blas87]

Well, it looks like I'll be doing a home hysterectomy.......

Any takers? I'll pay you in beer.

[DesignFox]

Well, it looks like I'll be doing a home hysterectomy.......

Any takers? I'll pay you in beer.

Now there's a frightening thought...

[Boozy]

Physicians should treat based on the individual patient, not what statistics say about the average woman.

But how much information is a doctor expected to have about the future choices of a patient?

Barring the ability to see forward in time, all he or she has to go on in these situations are statistics. After all, those 20% of women who changed their minds were "sure" at one point, too.

[BlaqueKatt]

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

info on vasectomy reversal here-number of factors to consider-71 to 97%sperm return but pregnancy rate of only 30-65%

for tubal ligation reversal it's 20%-70%-info here-and the "post tubal ligation syndrome" discussed is not real-women who have tubals have normally been on hormonal birth control for years which took away the symptoms, then once the tubal is done the symptoms return due to no need for hormonal birth control.

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

Lasik eye surgery has a 20% complication rate*-you see any doctors denying that elective surgery due to the complication rate?

*according to the FDA trials

especially if there are safe, reversible forms of bc available to women.

they are not as effective as surgery-and for some are not safe-over 35 or a smoker-nothing hormonal for you it's unsafe, allergic to latex-nothing for you.

I had my tubes tied because hormonal Birth control not only failed but I was beginning to get almost psychotic episodes once a month from it(PMDD-very severe case), I'm allergic to latex(highly allergic-I carry an epi-pen), which leaves IUD's doctor said with my uterus can't do it. I came close to death during childbirth, I couldn't handle another pregnancy-do I feel bad that I can't have any more kids-sometimes I do-should the doctor have not done the surgery knowing I couldn't use any form of birth control and another pregnancy might kill me-I was only 27 and going through a divorce.

I can tell you the story of my friend Susan* who wanted her tubes tied after her first son was born-doctor said no, you're too young-got pregnant again while on BC pills-she had severe pre-eclampsia with both children-both were taken by c-section 3 months early-both pregnancies almost killed her-the doctor did the surgery after the second child was born because he realized his mistake had almost cost a patient her life-

would a doctor feel guilty if the woman he refused surgery on died as a result of pregnancy/childbirth?

If so then he should do the surgery-no questions asked.

[Slytovhand]

would a doctor feel guilty if the woman he refused surgery on died as a result of pregnancy/childbirth?

If so then he should do the surgery-no questions asked.

But there's an all too easy counter to that, BK - would a doctor feel guilty if a patient died while performing elective surgery?

But how much information is a doctor expected to have about the future choices of a patient?

Barring the ability to see forward in time, all he or she has to go on in these situations are statistics

None, which is why the doctor should deal with the patient who presents here and now... and not a statistic! "I'm sorry, but I can't do this because 20% of people will regret it in the future" - bah humbug! How does the stat of "I'm sorry, but 100% of people end up dead after this procedure... sure, it may take a few decades, and it might be from being run over by a bus, but you know... can't be too careful these days, I might get sued (so... I can't do my job)."

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

[AFPheonix]

info on vasectomy reversal here-number of factors to consider-71 to 97%sperm return but pregnancy rate of only 30-65%

But still easier and safer than having to go back and redo an abdominal incision, no?

for tubal ligation reversal it's 20%-70%-info here-and the "post tubal ligation syndrome" discussed is not real-women who have tubals have normally been on hormonal birth control for years which took away the symptoms, then once the tubal is done the symptoms return due to no need for hormonal birth control.

So it looks like the odds for pregnancy are about the same after both vasectomy and tubal ligation reversals. So again, if I were a doc, I'd probably advise a very young, childless couple who have had no reported health problems to consider having him fixed as apposed to the woman, due lower risk in his surgery as compared to a tubal.

Lasik eye surgery has a 20% complication rate*-you see any doctors denying that elective surgery due to the complication rate?

*according to the FDA trials

complications can cover a very broad spectrum of symptoms, and very often there are complications with any surgery. The real question is that do a full 20% of an age group who elect to get LASIK regret having the procedure done?

they are not as effective as surgery-and for some are not safe-over 35 or a smoker-nothing hormonal for you it's unsafe, allergic to latex-nothing for you.

I had my tubes tied because hormonal Birth control not only failed but I was beginning to get almost psychotic episodes once a month from it(PMDD-very severe case), I'm allergic to latex(highly allergic-I carry an epi-pen), which leaves IUD's doctor said with my uterus can't do it. I came close to death during childbirth, I couldn't handle another pregnancy-do I feel bad that I can't have any more kids-sometimes I do-should the doctor have not done the surgery knowing I couldn't use any form of birth control and another pregnancy might kill me-I was only 27 and going through a divorce.

I can tell you the story of my friend Susan* who wanted her tubes tied after her first son was born-doctor said no, you're too young-got pregnant again while on BC pills-she had severe pre-eclampsia with both children-both were taken by c-section 3 months early-both pregnancies almost killed her-the doctor did the surgery after the second child was born because he realized his mistake had almost cost a patient her life-

would a doctor feel guilty if the woman he refused surgery on died as a result of pregnancy/childbirth?

If so then he should do the surgery-no questions asked.

Again, the stats were for women who got their tubes tied BEFORE the age of 30, so the first stat is meaningless.
As for you and your friend, obviously you guys would fall into the 4/5ths of happy customers.
I didn't say that if I was a doctor that I wouldn't do ANY, but you can bet a gal would have to have a very good reason (like yours) before I'd consider doing it.

[BlaqueKatt]

But still easier and safer than having to go back and redo an abdominal incision, no?

it's done with laproscopy-my surgical dressing was a band-aid the "incision" is less than a quarter inch long and does not require any stitches.

[AFPheonix]

I suspect you had to undergo anesthesia to do it, which in itself is risky, and there can be complications with laproscopy, such as hemotomas at the surgical site.
It's also still more invasive than a vasectomy, since you are having to go through many more layers of tissue, even though the cut is very small. Yes, less risky than full on abdominal surgery, but still riskier than a quick snip through the nutsack.

[Cats]

I said it in the other topic, and I'll say it again...

There is a HUGE difference in a doctor fessing up that (s)he doesn't want to perform the procedure on a woman for insurance/liability reasons than telling a her she is too young. You can do pretty much everything else when you are 18/21 (except rent a car), including HAVE children, so what the hell gives a doctor the right to say someone is too young to decide they don't want them? The decision to have children or not is up to the woman (or couple, if in a steady relationship), it does not belong to them.

Refusing to do a procedure on medial/legal grounds is reasonable (though understandably frustrating for the woman asking). Making life decisions for the woman is NOT.


And to put things into perspective here, yes, any surgery carries risks. However, look at all the plastic surgeons out there. So what, it's perfectly okay to put people under the knife for the sake of material looks without saying "you're too young" or "I won't do it on you cause I don't want to", but it is okay to prevent a woman, upon her request, her basic right to her own reproductive organs to cut them off?

Let me quote the WHO here (bold face mine):

"Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of ALL couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of DISCRIMINATION, coercion and violence."

Zero, folks, is a number. Performing it only on 'older' woman or those who have already had kids vs young and childless is discrimination.


Given that, I'm shocked more woman having sued doctors on the grounds of discrimnimation. Hey, if they can sue for having it done but changing their minds, why can't I sue if they tell me no but do it on a 30 year old with 2 kids?

[Cat]

I think I need to ask my doc about Essure on my next visit.....though I am pretty sure I know what his response will be.....

[linguist]

Given that, I'm shocked more woman having sued doctors on the grounds of discrimnimation. Hey, if they can sue for having it done but changing their minds, why can't I sue if they tell me no but do it on a 30 year old with 2 kids?

precedent has already been established by the women who have sued after having a change of heart that protects doctors. in most cases, this is not a medically necessary procedure, and you cannot force a physician to perform an elective procedure. furthermore, no doctor is telling you you can't have it, merely that they won't perform it, which is their right. when it comes to elective surgical procedures, the onus is on the patient to find a physician willing to perform said procedure, not on any random physician to perform the procedure at the demand of the patient.

if you want it bad enough, keep looking. eventually you'll find someone willing. it may not be convenient, you may have to travel, but that could be the case with any surgery, elective or otherwise. i've recently been through an analogous situation myself, when i was displaying all the classic symptoms of gallbladder disease, but showing no stones and my gallbladder function test came back at 1 point over what they consider 'acceptable'. it took me several months and visits to multiple surgeons before i was able to find one (two hours away) willing to remove it. he did, and now i'm much happier and feeling much better. but the moment that test came back 'acceptable,' even one point over, the surgery essentially became elective and it became my job to find a willing surgeon.

[linguist]

sorry for the double post, i meant to cover this, too

And to put things into perspective here, yes, any surgery carries risks. However, look at all the plastic surgeons out there. So what, it's perfectly okay to put people under the knife for the sake of material looks without saying "you're too young" or "I won't do it on you cause I don't want to", but it is okay to prevent a woman, upon her request, her basic right to her own reproductive organs to cut them off?

ethical plastic surgeons will refuse treatment on patients displaying signs of plastic surgery addiction, won't perform procedures on young patients that aren't displaying gross physical disfigurement, won't perform procedures such as breast augmentations to ridiculous proportions, will try to talk patients out of procedures they truly don't feel they need or would enhance the quality of their life. granted, not all plastic surgeons are ethical, but you can find unethical people in any profession.

and to reiterate my my last post, no individual doctor is preventing a woman the right to have the procedure, merely telling her that he or she won't be the one to perform it. it's the woman's responisibility to find a willing doctor.

[BlaqueKatt]

I think I need to ask my doc about Essure on my next visit.....though I am pretty sure I know what his response will be.....

if he tells you you're too young-bust out that info from the world health organization up there-and ask him point blank if he or she is in the habit of discrimination-call them out on it-"are you discriminating against me because of my age?"

[Cat]

if he tells you you're too young-bust out that info from the world health organization up there-and ask him point blank if he or she is in the habit of discrimination-call them out on it-"are you discriminating against me because of my age?"

I'm 31.....I don't think he'll pull the "too young," though I might be flattered...I've been feeling old

[Sylvia727]

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

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. Unless Canada has moved the age of adulthood to 22 or higher, she is a legal adult and is capable of making legal decisions about her own body. For a doctor to perform a surgery on a 35-year-old woman but refuse to perform that same surgery on a similiar 25-year-old woman, barring medically significant deviations, is discrimination. He's claiming that an adult woman is not capable of making adult decisions. Perhaps the doctor should contact her father and ask his permission? After all, parents are legally allowed to request elective surgery for their minor children, and she's obvious not independent yet.

Perhaps you meant that "age" can't legally be prosecuted. In which case, it should be.