Why do doctors made it hard for adults to get sterilized?

noubliezjamais

Voluntarily? Whether it's a vasectomy for men or tubal litigation/hysterectomy for women, even as a person in your 20s, you'll be almost certainly turned down by doctors who think "you're not old enough to make this decision"??

"What if you regret it"? Well there are many things adults are allowed to do/get and if they regret it, tough luck. Tattoos, marriage, loans (although not in this economy) etc..

Its funny how though they would never care if you had children and regretted it. Better a person not have kids after sterilization and save themselves from being a bad parent than have them and be stuck with them.

noubliezjamais

noubliezjamais wrote: »

Voluntarily? Whether it's a vasectomy for men or tubal litigation/hysterectomy for women, even as a person in your 20s, you'll be almost certainly turned down by doctors who think "you're not old enough to make this decision"??

"What if you regret it"? Well there are many things adults are allowed to do/get and if they regret it, tough luck. Tattoos, marriage, loans (although not in this economy) etc..

Its funny how though they would never care if you had children and regretted it. The default seems to be that you'll change your mind.

Probably wrong forum now.



Doctors would be remiss not to point out that the patient would be making a life altering decision - and to compare it to taking out a car loan suggests a lack of maturity.

Maybe they're making clinical decisions based on experience and facts.

It's very unusual for someone in their 20s to request sterilisation, and you would wonder about their state of mind. I don't know what the statistics say, but you'd have to be a little suspicious about such a drastic option at such an early stage in the reproductive cycle.

TuringBot47

Are you expecting the public health system to perform it and potentially reverse it at some point in the future?
As far as I know, vasectomy is reversible?

Health system is already under pressure, so these non-essential procedures will get pushed back.
Probably a different story if you pay privately.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Probably because adults are unable to take any sort of responsibility for themselves and should they change their minds in a couple of years, no doubt they’d try sue the dr for making them infertile.

kikilarue2

Tattoos, loans and marriages are all relatively simple to reverse.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Maybe they're making clinical decisions based on experience and facts.

It's very unusual for someone in their 20s to request sterilisation, and you would wonder about their state of mind. I don't know what the statistics say, but you'd have to be a little suspicious about such a drastic option at such an early stage in the reproductive cycle.

is having a child not a drastic option?? do you say people in their 20s are questionable as well if they have one?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

My uncle got it done on the NHS, had tried here but to no avail because he was 27.

NHS doctor proved a bit more open minded to the "I have five kids already though" counter argument.

I'd love to get it done, I'd sign whatever I needed to sign, not a hope though. I understand it's elective surgery with serious (and in the case of women permanent) consequences but when you hear of women with 3 sons being told "Well what if you want a daughter?" or women who have kids with their husband being told the marriage might break down and she might want kids with her new husband it's hard not to suspect there's a fair bit of an ideological motivation in the mix.

Also I'd wonder why it's this specific thing and not cervical cancer, symphysiotomies, elective hysterectomies and every other bloody aspect or procedure related to women's health that for some reason the medical establishment has always been super cautious about adhering to best practice and all that in case of being sued. AFAIK you can sign waivers for most elective procedures that you understand the risks and are willing to proceed on your own look out.

Kai Gigantic Snake

Kai Gigantic Snake wrote: »

My uncle got it done on the NHS, had tried here but to no avail because he was 27.

NHS doctor proved a bit more open minded to the "I have five kids already though" counter argument.

I'd love to get it done, I'd sign whatever I needed to sign, not a hope though. I understand it's elective surgery with serious (and in the case of women permanent) consequences but when you hear of women with 3 sons being told "Well what if you want a daughter?" or women who have kids with their husband being told the marriage might break down and she might want kids with her new husband it's hard not to suspect there's a fair bit of an ideological motivation in the mix.

Also I'd wonder why it's this specific thing and not cervical cancer, symphysiotomies, elective hysterectomies and every other bloody aspect or procedure related to women's health that for some reason the medical establishment has always been super cautious about adhering to best practice and all that in case of being sued. AFAIK you can sign waivers for most elective procedures that you understand the risks and are willing to proceed on your own look out.

On the other hand we'd a scandalous situation where some doctors were performing unnecessary hysterectomies.


I wouldn't doubt, open to correction though, that if a woman who had three children wanted a hysterectomy she would be offered it.

Apiarist

noubliezjamais wrote: »

Voluntarily? Whether it's a vasectomy for men or tubal litigation/hysterectomy for women, even as a person in your 20s, you'll be almost certainly turned down by doctors who think "you're not old enough to make this decision"??....

There are other birth control options. If someone in their 20s actually wants to become infertile via surgical means, it would be prudent to ask them if they had fully explored other options.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

[Deleted User] wrote: »

On the other hand we'd a scandalous situation where some doctors were performing unnecessary hysterectomies.


I wouldn't doubt, open to correction though, that if a woman who had three children wanted a hysterectomy she would be offered it.

A hysterectomy isn't the procedure for sterilisation, it's tubal ligation, and women with children do indeed get refused it. Some doctors are more sympathetic than others.

As for the unnecessary and unconsensual hysterectomies that's my point, when the argument is made that it's fear of litigation stopping doctors, it's not exactly stopped them doing what they feel like with women's bodies over the course of the history of the state.

banie01

I had a vasectomy at 28, had to attend multiple counseling appointments prior to the procedure, that at the time I felt were quite intrusive.

With the hindsight of 12yrs post op.
They handled it well, my choice for a vasectomy wasn't a knee jerk but the Doctors responsible for carrying out the procedure were very right to ensure I was aware that it was a "Final" choice.
That reversal was not likely to be possible and that as such I needed to be aware of all the factors.

I posted at the time and afterwards that I felt the control that Doctors attempted to exert was at odds with my right to my bodily autonomy...
As I've matured a bit, it wasn't.
I do still have serious issue with how Doctors approach the request of men versus women for sterility.
I was not in a relationship at the time of my vasectomy, yet I was harangued that I would be depriving a future partner of a chance to have children.
The unknown future possible partners want for a child, was deemed as valid as my want to be snipped

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

is having a child not a drastic option?? do you say people in their 20s are questionable as well if they have one?

I don't think something normal /normative can come within the definition of drastic, so no.

To state the obvious, having a child is certainly life-changing, but as a cultural norm or behaviour, it's very ordinary. To impose (perhaps) irreversible infertility is something that probably does, and ought to, raise questions about one's state of mind (why not wear a condom, or use other even more reliable contraceptive methods?)

Stark

Very common for people who can't stand the sight/sound/smell of kids in their 20s to feel broody in their 30s so I can see why a doctor would be reluctant to sterilise someone in their 20s.

eviltwin

My other half got the snip. He was late 30s and we had finished our family. It was a better option than long term contraception or female sterilisation and we'd talked about it for at least a year. Even so his GP was very dismissive of it and unwilling to help just in case we regretted it.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Counselling beforehand is very sensible I think, but the statement "I'm sure I don't want (any more) children and I'd like to pursue a permanent and very reliable way of ensuring I don't have any" doesn't inherently raise any red flags about their state of mind. Now if someone's coming in saying "I'm positive I don't want kids and I have been since my mother died two weeks ago" or something like that it's obviously a bit different. Some kind of reasonable age limit doesn't seem too objectionable to me either.

I can't do hormonal contraception, have tried so many times over the years and have experienced the full gamut of negative symptoms, from loss of libido to being suicidal. I'm looking into other options but realistically I'm left relying on either barrier or rhythm methods, which are the least effective and in the case of condoms one of the most expensive and inconvenient. I have a pretty irregular cycle too so I basically have a few pregnancy scares (more like terrors) a year.

I have never in the past 20 years been close to changing my mind about not wanting kids, I really don't think I'll change it in the next 10 which is about as long as I've got.

I accept that I may change my mind and I am more than willing to accept that risk, as I say put me in that counselling room, give me that waiver, I will sign or do whatever needs signing and doing.

And whatever about my situation, women who already have children and have decided their families are complete should absolutely be allowed to choose ligation.

8% of women in Canada choose it apparently, about 20k women per year in the Netherlands. I'm just having a quick little Google there and there seems to be a fairly prominent common denominator among the countries like Ireland where it's exceedingly difficult to obtain.

I'll give you a hint, it's also a common denominator among countries in which it's historically been difficult to obtain a divorce, or an abortion, or equal rights for LGBT.

There's still a certain, ahem, ethos permeating our healthcare education and system, particularly when it comes to reproductive health. I'm not saying it's the only thing at play, but nor is it just common sense and best interests of the patient on the part of doctors.

Mint Sauce

Don't like that tattoo you got? Most can be removed, though painful, or covered up. Not happy in a marriage, get a divorce. That loan, pay it back.

Sterilization? Not so easy to undo, and would be shocked if a doctor and the surgeon did question of someone under 30/40, were they absolutely sure. More so if they had no kids already.