RubySoho
Winston
Whose Fallopian Tubes Are They?
July 22nd 2008 21:57
I'll admit right off the bat that I did not conceive of this topic myself. My wife suggested I discuss it here as a result of a conversation we were having, and it sounded like an interesting topic. So, here goes.
I don't think I need to point out that abortion is a hot topic, on Orble and everywhere else. There are tons of arguments both pro and con, and the debate is not likely to end any time soon. However, a tangential aspect of that debate is the issue of birth control. If effective birth control were made available and used properly, then unwanted pregnancies (and thus abortions) would be a matter of far less consequence. Obstacles exist that prevent this, of course. The Catholic Church opposes any form of birth control that isn't the rhythm method or prayer. Various hardcore Christian groups support abstinence-only education that does little to prepare women for what to do if they actually DO have sex and become pregnant. The morning after pill is objected to on religious grounds as an "abortive agent" when it generally is nothing of the sort. These are all religious obstacles. But there are secular obstacles as well, obstacles that are no less frustrating or condescending. The one that I am referring to in particular is the obstacle of gynecologists themselves, and the procedure known as tubal ligation (getting your tubes tied).
Tubal ligation is a very common form of birth control in America. Millions of women have had the procedure, and while it does nothing to prevent the spread of STDs, it is highly effective (99.5% by some estimates) at preventing pregnancy. There are no drugs involved, sexual spontaneity is not compromised, and there is no way to forget to use proper birth control. For those people who truly do not want children (any or additional) it is a nearly perfect solution. As with any medical procedure there is a risk of side-effects, but the vast majority of women who have the procedure will not experience any significant problems. So what's the issue?
While I cannot say exactly how common this is, and could not find any hard numbers on it, suffice it to say that it is not uncommon for younger women to be denied a tubal ligation by their doctor, but not because of religious objections or even because of the potential risks. The prevailing reason seems to be that women under 30 are simply too young to make that decision, and are thus being prevented from doing something which they may regret.
Now, I'm not entirely clear on how I feel about this. On the one hand, while tubal ligation reversals are doable (and more successful now than in the past) there is still a risk that a tubal ligation can't be undone. Regret is one possibility, of course. And people do change their minds about things, so it is not unreasonable that someone may feel differently about having kids at 35 than they did at 25.
On the other hand, if an adult women is sure that she does not want children, and if she is responsible enough to want to avoid the issue of unwanted pregnancy or abortion, then is it anyone's right to deny her access to a legal medical procedure based solely on an arbitrary assessment of her age and capacity to make a decision? I can't see how that can be the case. As an adult, a woman owns her decisions, for better or for worse. For a doctor to try and protect another adult from their own (legal) desires is offensive and misguided, however good the intentions may be. True, there is no law to the effect that woman can be denied this procedure due to being below a minimum age, but doctors can and do refuse to perform non-essential procedures. It is a widespread attitude. I myself have known one or two people who faced a good deal of opposition in getting snipped, and they already had several children!
So, what do you think? Ladies, I'm asking you in particular, as we men don't have fallopian tubes nor can we give birth. But guys, feel free to toss your $0.02 in as well.
I don't think I need to point out that abortion is a hot topic, on Orble and everywhere else. There are tons of arguments both pro and con, and the debate is not likely to end any time soon. However, a tangential aspect of that debate is the issue of birth control. If effective birth control were made available and used properly, then unwanted pregnancies (and thus abortions) would be a matter of far less consequence. Obstacles exist that prevent this, of course. The Catholic Church opposes any form of birth control that isn't the rhythm method or prayer. Various hardcore Christian groups support abstinence-only education that does little to prepare women for what to do if they actually DO have sex and become pregnant. The morning after pill is objected to on religious grounds as an "abortive agent" when it generally is nothing of the sort. These are all religious obstacles. But there are secular obstacles as well, obstacles that are no less frustrating or condescending. The one that I am referring to in particular is the obstacle of gynecologists themselves, and the procedure known as tubal ligation (getting your tubes tied).
Tubal ligation is a very common form of birth control in America. Millions of women have had the procedure, and while it does nothing to prevent the spread of STDs, it is highly effective (99.5% by some estimates) at preventing pregnancy. There are no drugs involved, sexual spontaneity is not compromised, and there is no way to forget to use proper birth control. For those people who truly do not want children (any or additional) it is a nearly perfect solution. As with any medical procedure there is a risk of side-effects, but the vast majority of women who have the procedure will not experience any significant problems. So what's the issue?
While I cannot say exactly how common this is, and could not find any hard numbers on it, suffice it to say that it is not uncommon for younger women to be denied a tubal ligation by their doctor, but not because of religious objections or even because of the potential risks. The prevailing reason seems to be that women under 30 are simply too young to make that decision, and are thus being prevented from doing something which they may regret.
Now, I'm not entirely clear on how I feel about this. On the one hand, while tubal ligation reversals are doable (and more successful now than in the past) there is still a risk that a tubal ligation can't be undone. Regret is one possibility, of course. And people do change their minds about things, so it is not unreasonable that someone may feel differently about having kids at 35 than they did at 25.
On the other hand, if an adult women is sure that she does not want children, and if she is responsible enough to want to avoid the issue of unwanted pregnancy or abortion, then is it anyone's right to deny her access to a legal medical procedure based solely on an arbitrary assessment of her age and capacity to make a decision? I can't see how that can be the case. As an adult, a woman owns her decisions, for better or for worse. For a doctor to try and protect another adult from their own (legal) desires is offensive and misguided, however good the intentions may be. True, there is no law to the effect that woman can be denied this procedure due to being below a minimum age, but doctors can and do refuse to perform non-essential procedures. It is a widespread attitude. I myself have known one or two people who faced a good deal of opposition in getting snipped, and they already had several children!
So, what do you think? Ladies, I'm asking you in particular, as we men don't have fallopian tubes nor can we give birth. But guys, feel free to toss your $0.02 in as well.
| 70 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Oh sure, she may think she doesn't want a baby now, but really deep down, all women want to have bay-behs! All women need to have bay-behs! How could she let her womb go to waste?
Actually I'd be interested to know the ratio of male doctors to female doctors that refused to do this operation.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
i have seen african american women raise concerns about these surgeries being free while contraception and abortion are costly . . . in this instance there is some politics involved in forcing the womans hand . . . it is like de-sexing the poor (or particular minority groups that happen to be poor)
another point of controversy is the government offering payment to drug addicts or alcoholics if they undergo the surgery . . . i dont know what i think about that