<p>ek4, I completely agree. </p>
<p>However, there can be a lot of other issues to factor in. For examle, my mother had a tubal because another pregnancy would have been life-threatening so she wanted that security.</p>
<p>Sterilization should be assummed to be non reversible.
I didn’t have a breast reduction until I was about 38 and was sure that I was not going to nurse any more babies.</p>
<p>If I was planning on multiple partners I wouldn’t have undergone the surgery because who knows my new toyboy might convince me to have more kids.</p>
<p>I guess being a mother and wanting those kids to have a stable foundation- knowing who their father is and having him in the home doesn’t mesh with having kids but knowing you are going to have sex with someone besides their father.</p>
<p>Even if you were single with kids, if you were still of child bearing age, why would you just not use contraception if you were going to have sex, because a new and more stable relationship might change your opinion about subsequent pregnancies.</p>
<p>If at the time, you were adamant about not having any more children, underwent the surgery and later changed your mind, that seems to be a shame that you changed your mind but becoming a parent again by reversal, IVF or adoption seems much easier to rectify than * having children<a href=“as%20some%20apparently%20do%20,%20considering%20their%20treatment%20of%20thechildren”>/i</a>, that you changed your mind about having.</p>
<p>EMK4 - With all due respect, I think you’re giving way too much consideration to what’s appropriate in a caring society. I think the subject has made her life’s view pretty clear … “It’s all about me, all the time.”</p>
<p>Younghoss, while I do speak TIC at times, I generally am quite serious and completely literal.
Why would you think I would kid about being frightened of a pregnancy at (while a piece of plastic was inside my
uterus) 18 and an elective abortion? I do not believe that anything I have ever posted would indicate that I would joke about something that to me was a very weighty, complex decision that required serious thought.</p>
<p>
It’s not “just because” (at least not legally); it’s damages for pain & suffering. Similar to other non-economic damages in any personal injury lawsuit. While she may not have actual, economic damages, she does have a real injury (assuming that she suceeds on the merits of her lawsuit and proves that she is entitled to damages).</p>
<p>Chevda - OK I accept that. And checking my “Handbook of Pain and Suffering” for
‘Welfare Mom denied opportunity to charge the state for more than nine children’ I find … um, there doesn’t seem to be a listing for this particular affliction.</p>
<p>Oh sorry, I got the complaint wrong … it should have been ‘Welfare Mom denied opportunity to have many more children by many more men.’ Hmm, can’t find a listing for that one either. Let me check for ‘Welfare Mom denied opportunity to attract additional fertile men who may interested in a committed relationship that will probably include a pregnancy they will have no responsibility for.’ Nope, can’t find that one either. </p>
<p>I’m guessing the plaintiff’s lawyer doesn’t want me on the jury.</p>
<p>Many OB/GYN’s and urologists have criteria for when/if they will perform tubal ligations/vasectomies. These may include age of patient/spouse and/or number of children. I don’t see anything wrong with this. When I was in my early thirties I thought about having my tubes tied. My GYN asked me what I would do if one of my kids died. I said I would probably want another. She told me not to do it. She said they see every kind of sad story with patients who get their tubes tied and then want it reversed. Same thing with a vasectomy. Many people consider them reversible, but they truly are not. A doctor does not have to perform any elective procedure that he/she does not think is in someone’s best interest. For example, many plastic surgeons will not perform elective procedures if they think the patient does not need them. i.e. breast implants in a G cup, multiple nose jobs on a Michael Jackson type patient. Even though the patient wants it, the doctor may refuse. If the patient is unhappy with the refusal, they are free to find another doctor who will perform the procedure.</p>
<p>As for the woman in the article, if the hospital does not have the actual consent form in the chart, then I don’t think they will have any chance of winning this case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I had to have surgery to remove an ovary. I told the doctor, “while you’re in there, go ahead and ligate the other tube.” In our situation, it made sense. No reason to pay for two separate procedures.</p>
<p>I don’t know whether the hospital had authority to perform the sterilization or not. I’m not certain the lawsuit will go far unless the lady can show there was malpractice involved. As early posters said, what motivation would the surgeons have to do the extra work of performing a tubal ligation unless they believed they were given direction to do so? If the hospital ordered the procedure despite lack of consent, obviously that’s unacceptable.</p>
<p>“I don’t know why any woman would undergo a sterilization when the procedure of male sterilization is faster, less invasive and cheaper.”</p>
<p>Because a lot of men refuse to be sterilized because they are chicken. Consequently, since women are the ones who get pregnant, the women end up being sterilized even though it’s a more invasive and dangerous surgery than what men have to get.</p>
<p>
Because I had already had three children by c-section. My body couldn’t take much more. Even if something happened to my marriage, I didn’t want any more. Whereas, my husband could conceivably go on to marry again and have more children. Also, my tubes were tied immediately following the third c-section. No additional surgeries or much cost.</p>
<p>There is no hard and fast rule for much.</p>
<p>Here is why I thought you were kidding with your second sentence that you posted in your post 55.
I questioned this comment of yours: "I mean really- women have the babies shouldn’t the men have some physical involvement besides the obvious ? "</p>
<p>This sentance indicates that men should have more involvement when it comes to pregnancies. I think it hints pregnancy and childbirth should be more of a 50-50 proposition. Correct? Yet, when it comes to pregnancies, women hold all the cards.
They can choose for themself, the pill or other methods of birth control if they wish that are generally regarded as safe and effective.
Or, They can choose not to.
We often hear “it takes 2 to tango” referring to a pregnancy; it implies we are <em>partners</em> in this together; yet
If an unexpected pregnancy occurs women make the choice to carry the child, or seek adoption, or abortion. Generally speaking, the man has to accept the choice she makes. That’s a partner?
If the woman chooses to keep the child, then the man must pay child support as prescribed by law. So it takes 2 to tango, but if one chooses(the woman) to raise the child, then the other tango partner must pay bills. That’s a partner? Or conversely, if the man wanted the child, he has to abide by her decision if she chooses to abort. That’s a partner?
The idea that “we are partners in this” conflicts with the idea that “she controls her own body” if the man if forced to abide her sole choice. So pregnancies and childbirth are not 50-50 activities.</p>
<p>EK4, I don’t know what you’re asking me in your post 63, mentioning plastic in your uterus. I asked you specifically only about your second sentence in your post 55. I didn’t ask about your uterus, so that sentence(in 55) is what I addressed here. I hope I have answered your question.</p>
<p>Re: knowing your own mind, a lot of doctors (like the rest of society) have a profound bias towards parenthood.</p>
<p>In the context of discussing the risks of long-term use of various forms of birth control, I asked my doctor if the risks would be mitigated by getting a ligation at some point in the future. At the time of the conversation, I was 33 and had no children, which had been my plan since I was 12.</p>
<p>My doctor looked shocked and said, “You know, it’s PERMANENT. Once you get that sterilization, you’re infertile forever. You can’t change your mind later down the road,” yada yada in that vein.</p>
<p>Now suppose I had said instead, “I’m planning to get pregnant in the next few months.” </p>
<p>Would any doctor have responded by saying, “You know, it’s PERMANENT. Once you have that baby, you’re a mother forever. You can’t change your mind later and stick it back in”? Of course not. They would never doubt that I knew my own mind in that case. But any time you’re moving away from parenthood, there’s an assumption that you might be on some crazy whim, and they have to protect you from yourself.</p>