Female Sterilization

Toxica

I've been trying to find a private hospital or clinic that offers female sterilization in Ireland, does anyone know of any? I've done a google search but can only find ones in England. I would go for it through the public health system via my GP but since I am young(ish) they wouldn't even consider it.

January

They won't even sterilise you if your youngish and have kids in public care in Ireland. Takes a lot of persuasion. Have you tried Clane Hospital?

Nevyn

IF you have no children you have to be over 40, if you have 2 kids you have to be 35 if you are younger then 35 and have no kids there isn't anywhere in this country which will do the operation for even going privately and paying for it.
The HSE health care policies on this are very catholic.

So unfortunately you will have to go do a different country if you do not meet the very narrow criteria laid down.

Toxica

I'll try to contact Clane Hospital, I had a look at their website, nothing about sterilization on there but worth contacting them I suppose. To be honest I'm not even sure if I will be able to talk a private hospital into doing it seeing as I'm 28 and have no children yet. I have never wanted to have kids, since I was a kid I knew I would never want to have them but when I tell other people that they just look at me like I am insane! I don't see why it's seen as strange that a woman doesn't want to have kids. I'll probably end up going to England to get it done, they might be a bit easier to talk into doing it for me! Thanks for your help anyway.

Toxica

Thaedydal wrote: »

IF you have no children you have to be over 40, if you have 2 kids you have to be 35 if you are younger then 35 and have no kids there isn't anywhere in this country which will do the operation for even going privately and paying for it.
The HSE health care policies on this are very catholic.

So unfortunately you will have to go do a different country if you do not meet the very narrow criteria laid down.

Oh well, looks like I have no chance then! My doctor said they wouldn't do it if I was under 30 but I thought that if I went private that I may be able to get it done. England it is then!

Thanks for your help anyways.

hayser

Can I ask what you mean ny sterilization? Do you mean a hysterectomy? I don't want kids either and I'm 30. I didn't even know sterilization was possible for people who don't want children.

Toxica

You can get your fallopian tubes tied. Check out this page : http://www.bpas.org/bpaswoman.php?page=80

It explains it all!

January

Thaedydal wrote: »

IF you have no children you have to be over 40, if you have 2 kids you have to be 35 if you are younger then 35 and have no kids there isn't anywhere in this country which will do the operation for even going privately and paying for it.
The HSE health care policies on this are very catholic.

So unfortunately you will have to go do a different country if you do not meet the very narrow criteria laid down.

Which is a bloody disgrace. I'm 22 and due my second child at the end of February. I know I'm finished having children after this one. This means that I'll have to pay for contraception for the next 13 years at least or go to England and give them my money to get my tubes tied. My OH has offered to get "the snip" but what if we're not together in 13 years and I have met someone else or it doesn't take?

Guess I'll be heading to England also!

Toxica

It is a bloody disgrace! I tried the implant but I got so depressed on it, like I had permanent PMS, I really don't want to try any more hormone contraceptives!

Zaph

adrieanne__x wrote: »

My OH has offered to get "the snip"

Tbh, it's likely that they'll refuse a vasectomy for your partner if he's under 30 or so as well. I know this from a family friend who requested one when he was about that age due to already being the father of 5. It was only when his 6th child was born a year later that the GP agreed to refer him.

LegacyUser

Hi, had to reply to this thread. I'm 37 and like you have always known I don't want kids. NO interest, yet you get treated like an idiot when you talk with friends and family - "ah sure you will when the right man comes along!" type sh1te is what they usually come out with and medical professionals are worse.

I've had problem periods since I was 9! yes 9! I've tried the pills (least 3 diferenent kinds), implanon and depo and none of them agree with me - I want Sterilization but none of the Doctors I've spoken to over the years have taken it seriously. Like you I got the "your too young" "not till you've had children will it be considered" etc.

Why?

Its my body and I want something done. I've asked for it to be done privately (forget waiting lists) & would rather it done here then added complications of going abroad. I've said to at least three of the GPs I've spoken too about it that they can refer me to a counselor of their choosing and I'll convince them of my desire to not be a mother but all I ever get is fobbed off. Argh. True I should of pushed harder earlier but life has a habit of getting in the way before its suggested I havn't done enough. I've tried when money, time and emotional strength allowed.

However there is light (I hope), my latest Doc after 4yrs of listening to me beg has finally agreed to at least send me for tests. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Don't give up. If your absolutely sure that this is what you want keep pushing. Good Luck

January

Zaph wrote: »

Tbh, it's likely that they'll refuse a vasectomy for your partner if he's under 30 or so as well. I know this from a family friend who requested one when he was about that age due to already being the father of 5. It was only when his 6th child was born a year later that the GP agreed to refer him.

He's 31 so hopefully it'll be OK... Even so I know there's a private doc in Blanchardstown that does vasectomy's... Had a few recommendations!

fend

Hi -- Just a curious passer-byer...
Just wondering, why they won't perform these procedures if your under 40? Isn't it a personal choice? Just curious!

January

fend wrote: »

Hi -- Just a curious passer-byer...
Just wondering, why they won't perform these procedures if your under 40? Isn't it a personal choice? Just curious!

Simple and correct answer is that this is a backwards country. It should be your own choice but it's not!

foxinsox

Toxica wrote: »

I've been trying to find a private hospital or clinic that offers female sterilization in Ireland, does anyone know of any? I've done a google search but can only find ones in England. I would go for it through the public health system via my GP but since I am young(ish) they wouldn't even consider it.

I just happened to be talking to my doctor about contraception the other day. She was telling me about the Mirena coil, from what she said it seems that if you get your tubes tied there is 1/500 chance of getting pregnant whereas with the coil it is 1/1000 so this is often given to women who don't want more or any children. The coil can stay in place for up to five years.

I hope I've quoted my doctor correctly, but I'm sure you could google it and check facts. It might be an option for you.

opinion guy

fend wrote: »

Hi -- Just a curious passer-byer...
Just wondering, why they won't perform these procedures if your under 40? Isn't it a personal choice? Just curious!

adrieanne__x wrote: »

Simple and correct answer is that this is a backwards country. It should be your own choice but it's not!

No thats not the reason. The reason is that sometimes people do change there mind, and whilst tube tying procedures can be reversed - its not easy and doesn't always work. Hysterectomy obvisouly is not reversible, but surgeons would be reluctant to do it on someone so young because a ) who knows who your life and attitudes can change in ten years and b ) the are afraid of getting sued. Basically if the guideline says you shoudl not do this in someone under x years old and without y number of kids - and they do it anyway, and in 5 years time that person changes their mind, that patient coudl sue them for going against the guidlines.

January

Wouldn't all that be solved by simply signing a legal document stating that in the event of a mind change you cannot sue the doctor performing the procedure/the hospital/the HSE. Mentioning all three so that it's as airtight as possible?

I think hysterectomies are a bit radical unless there is a medical reason for them.

opinion guy

adrieanne__x wrote: »

Wouldn't all that be solved by simply signing a legal document stating that in the event of a mind change you cannot sue the doctor performing the procedure/the hospital/the HSE. Mentioning all three so that it's as airtight as possible?

No I don't think so. Id be interested what a legal opinion on this would be but i don't think such a waiver is binding.

I think hysterectomies are a bit radical unless there is a medical reason for them.

Thats another point. Hysterectomies are not small procedures and carry mobridity and mortality risks. Surgeons may not be willing to take such risks in the very young

dudara

adrieanne__x wrote: »

Wouldn't all that be solved by simply signing a legal document stating that in the event of a mind change you cannot sue the doctor performing the procedure/the hospital/the HSE. Mentioning all three so that it's as airtight as possible?

Such waivers can be overturned in court. They really have very little status.

These procedures are often refused to young people because of the fact that they could change their minds later in life. They could possibly claim that they were not informed of all the facts etc.

Svalbard

There are forms of contraception available that are more effective and safer than female sterilisation. Most of these alternatives are also easily reversible.

Complications of sterilisation procedures include regret, failure, ectopic pregnancy and death.

Some posters have decided that the reason they are having difficulty convincing Irish doctors to refer for or perform steriliation is because this country is backward or Catholic. The real reason is because it is not best medical practice to sterilise the young for the reasons outlined above, when safer, more affective and reversible alternatives are available.

As for the argument 'its my body I can do what I like' - that's all well and good, but you are not going to sterilise yourself, are you? You are looking to have someone else do it for you. You are forgetting that the surgeon must accept responsibility for your welfare. With such alternative methods available is it really surprising that many refuse to take the risk?

Piste

fend wrote: »

Hi -- Just a curious passer-byer...
Just wondering, why they won't perform these procedures if your under 40? Isn't it a personal choice? Just curious!

If something goes wrong in the procedure the surgeon could be hauled in front of the fitness to practice committee and his/her decision to carry out the operation will be scrutinised. If there was no medical reason for the tubal ligation to be carried out and there was a complication as a result of the procedure the surgeon could be struck off the medical register.

bronte

I've personally never understood this. It is disgusting to me that a woman cannot choose to eliminate the possibility of children from her life.
I have long strived for a hysterectomy and have been essentially laughed at thus far. One elderly doctor actually said "Sure why would a pretty girl like you not have children"
I live in England now and intend to have the tubal ligation performed, but in all honesty, if I'm going to have surgery I'd prefer it to be 100% effective.
I do feel there's some kind of underlying conspiracy behind it all.

Nevyn

Svalbard wrote: »

There are forms of contraception available that are more effective and safer than female sterilisation. Most of these alternatives are also easily reversible.

There is only 1 type of contraception which is as effective as female sterilisation and that is the I.U.S. which is not suitable for ever woman.

C

Svalbard wrote: »

omplications of sterilisation procedures include regret, failure, ectopic pregnancy and death.

Scare mongering will not be tolerated on this forum.

All surgical proceedures call risks all of them.

Svalbard wrote: »

Some posters have decided that the reason they are having difficulty convincing Irish doctors to refer for or perform steriliation is because this country is backward or Catholic. The real reason is because it is not best medical practice to sterilise the young for the reasons outlined above, when safer, more affective and reversible alternatives are available.

The health policies arround female reproduction in the country are catholic attitude based and this reflects on the lack of choice women have.

Svalbard wrote: »

As for the argument 'its my body I can do what I like' - that's all well and good, but you are not going to sterilise yourself, are you? You are looking to have someone else do it for you. You are forgetting that the surgeon must accept responsibility for your welfare. With such alternative methods available is it really surprising that many refuse to take the risk?

Many more women would avail of female sterilisation if there were not as many hoops to jump through, every year I know of at least 5 women who want to get it done and can not due to the policies in the country and the prohibitive cost to have it done abroad.

flynnser19

Toxica wrote: »

I'll try to contact Clane Hospital, I had a look at their website, nothing about sterilization on there but worth contacting them I suppose. To be honest I'm not even sure if I will be able to talk a private hospital into doing it seeing as I'm 28 and have no children yet. I have never wanted to have kids, since I was a kid I knew I would never want to have them but when I tell other people that they just look at me like I am insane! I don't see why it's seen as strange that a woman doesn't want to have kids. I'll probably end up going to England to get it done, they might be a bit easier to talk into doing it for me! Thanks for your help anyway.

ive always felt like this myself and i hate the way people lok at you when you say you dont want kids. i always get the reaction of "dont say that" as if its the worst thing on earth!!!granted i am only 22 but i know deep in my heart i dont want children ever!!!im too selfish and i just have never been maternal!!!!!let me know what you find out because one day i might do it when im older!!

Barracudaincork

flynnser19 wrote: »

ive always felt like this myself and i hate the way people lok at you when you say you dont want kids. i always get the reaction of "dont say that" as if its the worst thing on earth!!!granted i am only 22 but i know deep in my heart i dont want children ever!!!im too selfish and i just have never been maternal!!!!!let me know what you find out because one day i might do it when im older!!

5 Years ago, myself and both male and female friends went out for dinner where this topic came up and 3 women said they did want to have kids without a shadow of a doubt, the other 3 said no way, never ever, not a chance etc etc I have bought 3 baby presents since then, and each one was for the "never ever" women. All of whom who are delighted with their babies.

I have another friend who said no way, no babies and i knew in my heart and soul she meant it, herself and her husband have been married a few years now and love their lifestyle too much etc She is now 40 and doesnt regret not having kids.

I guess my point is, that we all know people who say it, its just hard to pick out the ones who really mean it against the ones who dont. Also dont take it to heart when people say "dont say that", maybe they dont think you mean it or maybe they genuinely cant imagine you not being a Mum as they think you would be a great one etc etc

LegacyUser

I dont mean to scare monger anyone but anyone considering this operation should really really THINK TWICE

My sister had this done after her fourth child and passed away as a result.

She was in perfect health non smoker non drinker.

So think twice ladies

Nevyn

Every major surgery has risks, it's not a minor one like a vasectomy but it's not the risks which dictated the policy on at what age a woman can have one but catholic dogma which should not happen in this day and age.

Svalbard

bronte wrote: »

I've personally never understood this. It is disgusting to me that a woman cannot choose to eliminate the possibility of children from her life.
I have long strived for a hysterectomy and have been essentially laughed at thus far. One elderly doctor actually said "Sure why would a pretty girl like you not have children"
I live in England now and intend to have the tubal ligation performed, but in all honesty, if I'm going to have surgery I'd prefer it to be 100% effective.
I do feel there's some kind of underlying conspiracy behind it all.

Er, really..... Disgusting? Conspiracy theory? Is that not a tad OTT?

Thaedydal wrote: »

There is only 1 type of contraception which is as effective as female sterilisation and that is the I.U.S. which is not suitable for ever woman.

Mirena, Implanon and Vasectomy are more effective than sterilisation.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Scare mongering will not be tolerated on this forum.

All surgical proceedures call risks all of them.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Every major surgery has risks, it's not a minor one like a vasectomy but it's not the risks which dictated the policy on at what age a woman can have one but catholic dogma which should not happen in this day and age.

How on earth is this scare mongering? Its the truth.
I could accuse you of downplaying the risks of surgery. Just saying 'Oh sure all surgery carries risk' in a dismissive tone doesnt change the facts.

opinion guy

Svalbard wrote: »

Er, really..... Disgusting? Conspiracy theory? Is that not a tad OTT?

+1

Mirena, Implanon and Vasectomy are more effective than sterilisation.

Hmmm. Partially correct. From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods
Method Typical use failure rate % Perfect use failure rate %
Mirena 0.2 0.2
Implanon 0.05 0.05
Vasectomy 0.15 0.15
Tubal Ligation 0.5 0.5

They don't have a figure for hysterectomy but it is the most effective - but also he most drastic. But Mirena, Implanon and Vasectomy are all more effective than a woman having her tubes tied.

How on earth is this scare mongering? Its the truth.
I could accuse you of downplaying the risks of surgery. Just saying 'Oh sure all surgery carries risk' in a dismissive tone doesnt change the facts.

+1

Thaeydal I'm inclined to agree here. I have respect for your responses always so I mean no offence here but you are off the mark on this one I feel. I am the first to bash Catholic indoctrined attitudes in this country especially guilt ridden judgemental ones like you are suggesting. But thats not the case here. Hysterectomy is a big deal with various surgical and medical complications. I guarantee you very few surgeons would be prepared to do it in a 22 year old for example. Now to the 22 year old who posted I know you are full sure of what you want now. But at 32 you will have changed in a billion ways you can't imagine now. and at 42 you will have changed in a billion more. Doctors know this. And quite frequently they will see patients at 22 adamantly demanding they don't want kids and many many times they will see them change their minds by 32, or else by 42. Now I know you will say you are not one of those. But how is a doctor to know whether you are or you aren't? He isn't. So they play it according to the law of causing least harm. And also according to what will get them sued the least. And its just that simple. Yes, you might find surgeons in the UK for example who will do this operation. Its a bigger country. But I must say I'd wonder what percentage of surgeons in the uk would be prepared to do this in a young woman and how they are viewed by their peers. You should be very careful about seeing a surgeon who will do this. DO ask him about his success rates and complication rates for the procedure - then compare them to typical rates which I'm sure you can find online somewhere. Do google the surgeon and find out if he/she is in good standing. Ask him/her if he has any previous patients who might be willing to speak to you about their experiences.

Also if someone is 22 and considering this you should know - they almost certainly WON'T remove your ovaries at this age (unless for example there is a very strong likelihood of developing ovarian cancer). You would be far too young and the lifetime risk of developing osteoporosis would be huge for such a person. If you did have your ovaries removed you would have to be on long term meds to prevent osteoporosis. So having your womb removed should put a stop to monthly bleeding, but you would still suffer the same hormonal surges every month you would normally along with whatever other symptoms you get from that.

sam34

i wonder really is it a catholic thing at all?

i mean, isnt the catholic church's stance on contraception that it is only natural methods that are allowed?

hysterectomy certainly isnt natural!

i cant imagine the catholic ethos being "ok, once you have x number of kids then you can get a hysterectomy", it's more likely to be "no you cant have a hysterectomy, take your chances with the rhythm method and "accept with love the children god may give you""

from what i remember reading at the time, didnt michael neary use teh defence that some of the women wanted hysterectomies as means of contraception, but because he couldnt be seen to be doing that in a catholic hospital, he did the hysterectomy but claimed it was for medical reasons


***nb, i am NOT condoning what michael neary did, i'm merely illustrating my point**

i really think the current guidelines are there, not as a hangover of catholic control, but as an attempt to prevent major regrets later in life for women.

it may seem patronising and paternalistic, but the inherent intention is good, imo.

and, FWIW, i'm one of those women who does not want kids and will never have kids, and would potentialy be in teh market for tubal ligation if it were more readily available.

edit: now, i could be wrong, i'm no fan of the church and not 100% au fait with all their teaching, but that would ne my take on it. i know they have been and continue to be a blight on sexual and reproductive health, but lets not assume it all begins and ends with tehm!

mise23

I apologise in advance but I don't get the point of this thread.
I accept that some women say they never want to have children. I'm all for personal autonomy and freedom of choice.

Aren't there a whole variety of contraceptive methods out there a lot less drastic than having a hysterectomy or tubal ligation? If you're really phobic about getting pregnant you can use more than one method or not have sex in the first place. If these methods fail there's the morning after pill and abortion. If you have moral qualms about abortion you can give the child up for adoption.

Other posters have pointed out that people can change their mind and suddenly decide they want children after all, which you can't if you've had a hysterectomy or other potentially irreversible procedure.

As you can tell I'm fairly pragmatic. Don't let me air my views on IVF or I'll be crucified by every woman on boards.ie:eek:

dory

mise23 wrote: »

I apologise in advance but I don't get the point of this thread.
I accept that some women say they never want to have children. I'm all for personal autonomy and freedom of choice.

Aren't there a whole variety of contraceptive methods out there a lot less drastic than having a hysterectomy or tubal ligation? If you're really phobic about getting pregnant you can use more than one method or not have sex in the first place. If these methods fail there's the morning after pill and abortion. If you have moral qualms about abortion you can give the child up for adoption.

Other posters have pointed out that people can change their mind and suddenly decide they want children after all, which you can't if you've had a hysterectomy or other potentially irreversible procedure.

As you can tell I'm fairly pragmatic. Don't let me air my views on IVF or I'll be crucified by every woman on boards.ie:eek:

Ehhh....what?? Don't have sex? Have an abortion? You think these are somehow better options? I'm gay, won't have an accident and won't go out of my way to get me some sperm. Why should I have painful periods every month?
I think it's a great option for some people.

mise23

1. I did mean for people to try every other form of contraception first before abstaining or aborting.

2. OCP and IUD can help with painful periods.

3. I truly believe that someone who feels they need a hysterectomy as a contraceptive must have deep seated pathological fears of getting pregnant. Especially when there are so many other contraceptive options available.

sam34

mise23 wrote: »

1. I did mean for people to try every other form of contraception first before abstaining or aborting.

2. OCP and IUD can help with painful periods.

3. I truly believe that someone who feels they need a hysterectomy as a contraceptive must have deep seated pathological fears of getting pregnant. Especially when there are so many other contraceptive options available.

other forms of contraception may not be suitable for medical reasons, or for lifestyle reasons.

someone may feel a tubal ligation is infinitely preferable to taking hormonal contraceptives for 20 years or more

as for abstaining - wtf? being denied one of lifes greatest pleasures and a majorly intimate act with her partner just because she doesnt want to conceive - gimme a break! i'd rather have a tubal ligation than have no sex til i'm post-meonpausal.

finally, the usual surgical method of female sterilisation is tubal ligation, not a hysterectomy. i may have muddied the waters inadvertently when i mentioned michael neary doing teh hysterectomies, but hysterectomies are not routinely done for sterilisation purposes.

mise23

I'm like a dog with a bone, though I do know at this stage I'm not going to get my point across.

what about the woman's partner taking responsibility, wearing a condom and some spermicidal jelly? if the condom breaks use the morning after pill. or better yet ask the partner to have a vasectomy (though that's potentially irreversible too it's less invasive)

seamus

mise23 wrote: »

1. I truly believe that someone who feels they need a hysterectomy as a contraceptive must have deep seated pathological fears of getting pregnant. Especially when there are so many other contraceptive options available.

It's not always necessarily just as a contraceptive though. Most (if not all) women experience some discomfort during menstruation, but some women go through really horrendous pain, even with medication. If they have no intention of using their uterus to carry a child, is it better for them for live 40-50 years of their life where they spend a quarter of that time in extreme pain, or would you do them the service of relieving that pain without otherwise affecting the quality of their life?

There are other reasons too why a hysterectomy may be favourable - I know of women under 25 who've been rendered impotent by damage to their ovaries, and are at risk of uterine cancer, yet due to some archaic notion tha all women should carry a child, they'll be forced to live with that risk (and the monthly periods) until they're 40.

Psychologically to some, it can be a stone around their neck - a reminder that they'll never carry children, menstruation is almost a humiliation - adding insult to injury.

I would even be in favour of providing elective hysterectomies to women who have no medical problems. No, menstruation isn't really a walk in the park, neither is having your hormones changing all the time. No contraceptive stops this. So if a woman is sure she no longer needs her uterus and is aware of the risks of such a major surgery, why deny her?

sam34

mise23 wrote: »

I'm like a dog with a bone, though I do know at this stage I'm not going to get my point across.

what about the woman's partner taking responsibility, wearing a condom and some spermicidal jelly? if the condom breaks use the morning after pill. or better yet ask the partner to have a vasectomy (though that's potentially irreversible too it's less invasive)

a lot of people in committed long term relationships dislike condoms because they reduce intimacy and interfere with spontaneity. plus theres a greater chance of something going wrong.

people may have moral or ethical obligations to the morning after pill, or may not be able to take it for medical reasons.

the man may not be able to have a vasectomy for medical reasons.
he may not want to have one for personal reasons.

mise23

I agree with Seamas' examples but the original thread was just about contraception.
I wouldn't deny anyone a procedure if there was a genuine need.
Why have a procedure just because it exists without thinking through the ramifications and the alternatives? why do something you may regret later?


Sorry but I'm not usually this right wing.

Does Sam34 ever give up? I'm definitely going to: lets agree to disagree on this one.

seamus

mise23 wrote: »

Why have a procedure just because it exists without thinking through the ramifications and the alternatives? why do something you may regret later?

But how do you know they haven't thought about the ramifications? How do you know they haven't investigated the alternatives? You can be fairly sure that most women who are thinking about being cut open and having a major organ removed at a not insignificant risk to their life have probably researched every available alternative and found them lacking.

We all do things that we regret later and that we can't change. That's life. You can't legislate for it.

sam34

mise23 wrote: »

Why have a procedure just because it exists without thinking through the ramifications and the alternatives? why do something you may regret later?.

what?? who said women dont think through the ramifications and alternatives? in fact, teh treating surgeon is ethically and legally obliged to explain these to teh patient.

why do something you may regret? well, is it sensibel to avoid doing something in case you may regret it later? the consequences of not having a sterilisation could be life-changing for the woman if she got pregnant.

mise23 wrote: »

Does Sam34 ever give up? I'm definitely going to: lets agree to disagree on this one.

it depends on how strongly i feel about a topic

Barracudaincork

mise23 wrote: »

I'm like a dog with a bone

Innuendo anyone?

IMO this is an extreme way of dealing with not getting pregnant, however I also think that by putting every women in the country into one basket and that basket being you will reproduce or at least have the capacity to reproduce until your ovaries shrivel up is stupid.

There are very good methods of contraception out there to deal with unwanted pregancies and for most people thats enough, for some though its not. I accept that, and I beleive it shouldnt be readily available but it should be an option given to a women after she has been assessed by a relevant counsellor, this would ensure the womens best interests are at heart and someone who really wants it can have it done.

mise23

I vehemently deny any freudian slips.
Have you ever seen how difficult it is to take a dog's bone away?
It's a very innocent analogy.
Methinks I doth protest too much

sam34

Barracudaincork wrote: »

it should be an option given to a women after she has been assessed by a relevant counsellor, this would ensure the womens best interests are at heart and someone who really wants it can have it done.

ok, i know i've quoted your post, but i'm not trying to get at you specifically.

but being assessed by a counsellor is no guarantee of anything, really.

ok, it might ensure women arent making impulsive decisions like "my bf dumped me, i'll never love anyone again, therefore i'll never want kids", but really this kinda woman would never amke it past a gp let alone get access to a surgeon to perform the op.

a counsellor can ask why the woman has made the decision, and form an opinion on how sound that reasoning is.

however, they cant predict teh future. they dont know what will happen if that woman's circumstances change

{i'm aware that the woman herself cant predict the future either, but my point is that being assessed by a counsellor is not really an extra layer of security}

it reminds me of a particular hospital i worked in. one department used prescribe alot of aparticular drug which was known to cause depression. they used send people to my department (psychiatry) before starting the drug, asking if we'd assess them to see if they would become depressed on it. now, we could assess them, and assess their risk of depression based on a number fo factors, but we could never be black and white and say they would/would not get depressed. similarly, no counsellor can say that any woman will/will not change her mind about kids.

Barracudaincork

sam34 wrote: »

ok, i know i've quoted your post, but i'm not trying to get at you specifically.

but being assessed by a counsellor is no guarantee of anything, really.

ok, it might ensure women arent making impulsive decisions like "my bf dumped me, i'll never love anyone again, therefore i'll never want kids", but really this kinda woman would never amke it past a gp let alone get access to a surgeon to perform the op.

a counsellor can ask why the woman has made the decision, and form an opinion on how sound that reasoning is.

however, they cant predict teh future. they dont know what will happen if that woman's circumstances change

{i'm aware that the woman herself cant predict the future either, but my point is that being assessed by a counsellor is not really an extra layer of security}

it reminds me of a particular hospital i worked in. one department used prescribe alot of aparticular drug which was known to cause depression. they used send people to my department (psychiatry) before starting the drug, asking if we'd assess them to see if they would become depressed on it. now, we could assess them, and assess their risk of depression based on a number fo factors, but we could never be black and white and say they would/would not get depressed. similarly, no counsellor can say that any woman will/will not change her mind about kids.

No worries i dont think you are.

I agree it doesnt give a guarantee, but its better than nothing and may reduce the amount of people who may regret it in the future, which is more what i meant rather than the councellor "knowing" for sure how this person will feel.

Stheno

mise23 wrote: »

Have you ever seen how difficult it is to take a dog's bone away?

If the dog is well trained, it can be surprisingly easy

Anyway one reason why women (especially those in their thirties who never want children) may choose to have a tubal ligation is due to the fact that the longer you use hormonal contraception the more risks there are, in the case of the pill, some are not recommended for women over thirty five, the likes of depo provera can increase the risk of bone density and women using it should have bone scans to check the effects if they use it long term.

The IUS is probably the best option prior to tubal ligation, but some women may not be comfortable using it.

Imo if a woman has thought through all of the options and chooses to have a tubal ligation then that option should be available prior to the age of forty.

bronte

Svalbard wrote: »

Er, really..... Disgusting? Conspiracy theory? Is that not a tad OTT?

It's disgusting to me that I cannot make a choice that would give me immense freedom and ease of mind, yes.
As for the conspiracy theory comment...that was half in jest but it certainly can feel that way when you are not getting listened to for the umpteenth time.
It becomes very irritating.
I also agree with what seamus was saying about suffering the ever so lovely monthlies for no good reason.
To the person who suggested abstinence as a way to avoid children, have you tried this?
It's rather difficult when you are with someone you love!

January

opinion guy wrote: »

Now to the 22 year old who posted I know you are full sure of what you want now. But at 32 you will have changed in a billion ways you can't imagine now. and at 42 you will have changed in a billion more. Doctors know this. And quite frequently they will see patients at 22 adamantly demanding they don't want kids and many many times they will see them change their minds by 32, or else by 42. Now I know you will say you are not one of those. But how is a doctor to know whether you are or you aren't? He isn't. So they play it according to the law of causing least harm. And also according to what will get them sued the least. And its just that simple.

Also if someone is 22 and considering this you should know - they almost certainly WON'T remove your ovaries at this age (unless for example there is a very strong likelihood of developing ovarian cancer). You would be far too young and the lifetime risk of developing osteoporosis would be huge for such a person. If you did have your ovaries removed you would have to be on long term meds to prevent osteoporosis. So having your womb removed should put a stop to monthly bleeding, but you would still suffer the same hormonal surges every month you would normally along with whatever other symptoms you get from that.

Reckon that one is for me. I have two children (well I have on child and one cooking in there at the moment, will be served in about 7 weeks), so it's not as if I'm some radical 22 year old who is adament they never wanted children. I know my family will be complete after this baby is born. I made the decision to have my children early so as my family would be complete early.

Now, it's easy to say that a lot of surgeons just wouldn't take the risk because they are worried about being sued, but couldn't that be said about a lot of elective surgical procedures? Why do they perform those and not tubal litigation on women who are practically begging (I've known women to go to their GP 7/8 times and beg for a refferal for this) for this procedure? The truth is the three main maternity hospitals in Dublin have a very very Catholic ethos when it comes to performing these kinds of surgeries. I think it may be up to the HSE to come up with an air tight waiver form for women to sign that in the event of a mind change they would not be able to sue for damages if the procedure cannot be reversed.

Yes, there are other forms of contraception available. But as another poster suggested, most of these are not recommended long term for several health reasons. Some aren't even suitable for some women as the hormones in them can disagree with them. They are also very costly. I could end up spending a lot of money over a lifetime or a couple of hundred euro for one procedure and have piece of mind that I won't get pregnant without having to head to the doctor every couple of months/years to change my contraception. Abortion is simply not an option for most women.

Also, I'm not looking to have my ovaries or my womb removed. I don't agree with these procedures unless they are really needed for women with health problems such as endometrosis or cancer. I think it'd be a very radical form of birth control to put women into the menopause so early as a contraceptive.

WriterofDreams

The policy among all doctors is to avoid surgery if at all possible. Anyone who suffers from recurring appendicitis or tonsilitis will know this.

For someone who suffers terrible sore throats the supposedly easy option would be to remove the tonsils in what most people would think was a simple routine procedure. In cases of tonsilitis the procedure is medically indicated (meaning that it is needed to cure an actual illness), it is not cosmetic, but the policy is that you have to suffer three severe infections in a single year to qualify for it. The reason for this policy is that there has to be a very very strong case for surgery before it will be carried out.

Surgery carries a large number of risks and no surgeon (except perhaps a cosmetic surgeon) wants to put a life at risk unnecessarily. In a small but significant number of cases anaesthetic can kill the person straight off. There is no way of knowing whether this will happen or not until the anaesthetic is administered and the person is dead. This risk will not be taken unless the surgeon thinks the surgery is absolutely necessary. This is not the case with women who want to be sterilised due to not wanting children.

bronte

I still don't understand how you can opt for something sometimes "frivolous" like a boob job , and be entertained, and yet you are not allowed to make an informed decision to eliminate children from your life.
The " risk will not be taken unless the surgeon thinks the surgery is absolutely necessary" argument doesn't do it for me.

There is more to it then that.

magneticimpulse

As one poster pointed out, she was lesbian and was interested in having a similar procedure to this. Therefore not only for contraception but also to stop having periods, if you know you never intend on having children for the next 30 years of your child bearing years why suffer periods?

Its very easy for men to be critical, but having periods every month is a right pain in the arse. Any woman would agree with me on that one and I can understand, if there is no point in having them, then why have them? It should be a womans choice.

I wear glasses and i have people saying to me, would you not have your eyes lasered, everyone is doing it these days? That carries risks, but people still can choose to go ahead with it. You could argue that there are alternative methods such as glasses to avoid such a procedure?? Well why are people against this? I think people should have a choice to do it. I know my mam had this procedure 40. She saw 2 of her sisters get pregnant by accident after 40 and was adament that wasnt going to happen to her. Why cant a younger woman have the same choice?

If you think you have to go to the UK for this procedure, would you consider going to the European Union High Court, saying you feel your health is at risk, because you have to go abroad for a medical procedure, which cant be followed up on? I know thats what 3 Irish women are doing at the moment, because they were "forced" to travel to UK for abortions!! They put forward that if anything was to happen to them after the procedure they would not have the proper healthcare. I think if thats what it takes to change the Catholic laws in Ireland, then women should bring it forward.

WriterofDreams

If you want to be sterilised, chances are the surgeon will perform a tubal ligation. This does not stop periods. No surgeon will remove a uterus unless there is a good medical reason for it as removing an organ is a very very very major procedure that can cause huge problems for the body in terms of blood loss, hormonal changes (as the uterus does influence hormonal balance) and scarring. Therefore, sterilisation is not an option for stopping periods.

There are other procedures such as endometrial ablation that can be performed to stop or reduce heavy periods. I don't know what availability of this procedure is in Ireland but a side effect is that it dramatically reduces fertility to almost nil. It is a relatively safe procedure that is very effective at reducing pain and heavy bleeding.