Husband's Permission Required to have Tubes Tied - VeggieBoards - A Vegetarian Community
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 11-30-2003, 12:58 PM
Beginner
 
SunnyK's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,081
My friend laid this one on me last night: She wants to get her tubes tied, her husband's signature is required by Ohio law, and he doesn't want to sign.



She is 35 and has two daughters, one with her husband. He is 29, and says he wants to have a boy.



I can understand how reproduction is a right and a responsibility of both people in a marriage -- something that they MUST decide together. However, I'm not sure if it's appropriate for the state to attempt to regulate this. If they fundamentally disagree on this issue, how can the state possibly help the situation? Certainly not by forcing her to choose between 1) divorce, 2) refusing all sex, and 3) risking unwanted pregnancy.



I see the husband's point of view too: maybe having another child is an essential element of marriage to him, even to the point of wanting to find another mate if he can't have it with her. Fair enough.



But shouldn't they work that out between themselves?



I dunno. Comments appreciated.
SunnyK is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 11-30-2003, 01:11 PM
Beginner
 
dk_art's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,664
"She wants to get her tubes tied, her husband's signature is required by Ohio law, and he doesn't want to sign."

---------------------



WOW ... thats unbelievable. It's her body. If she wants no more kids than it's his problem to deal with that reality and if it annoys him enough, get a divorce..... but the requirement of his agreement to have this done is outrageous IMHO. I don't know about laws here as I've never considered this issue much.



I'd be very curious to know if the same state has laws requiring the wife's signature if the husband wanted a vasectomy.



If you find that out, please post here.
dk_art is offline  
#3 Old 11-30-2003, 01:16 PM
Beginner
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Has anyone heard of the word adoption? If you absolutely want a specific gender, it's about the only guaranteed way to get it.



It's similiar as women who want an abortion and the fathers sometimes succeed at getting an injunction against it.



In the modern world, we forget that men also desire children. Some want to be fathers as badly as women want to be mothers.



There is something about the law in question that digs under my skin; reminds me a little too much of the days when husbands controlled everything about their wives. I doubt men need the premission of their wives to have vas. done.



Yet, it is meant as a means to get these husbands involved in the process. They do have a say in the decisio, as it will affect them and their dreams as well. As a woman, if you don't like that, then leave him or compromise.



I don't think there should be a law like this, no. But, it obviously brought up a huge issue in your friends' marriage. Makes me wonder how many husbands showed up during the surgeries, cursing at the doctors, yelling that they didn't want the surgeries done.



Just because a man can't give birth, that doesn't mean he isn't allowed to have an equal share in the decision-making process. Both sexes are required to make a child; both sexes get equal say.



In closing, yes, they should work it out on their own. Anyone 18 or older should be allowed to have elective surgery on their own accord.



If your friend forces her husband into signing, their marriage is over. If he forces her to have another child that she doesn't want, their marriage is over. So, they had better do some serious talking, compromising, and soul-searching, or they are going to head downhill fast.
GhostUser is offline  
#4 Old 11-30-2003, 01:19 PM
Beginner
 
Christy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by dk_art View Post

I'd be very curious to know if the same state has laws requiring the wife's signature if the husband wanted a vasectomy.



Ooh, good point. Is the same required for an abortion?
Christy is offline  
#5 Old 11-30-2003, 01:20 PM
Beginner
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by dk_art View Post




WOW ... thats unbelievable. It's her body. If she wants no more kids than it's his problem to deal with that reality and if it annoys him enough, get a divorce





That's just it. Why is her say in this matter more important then his? It doesn't work in reverse. Husband doesn't want more kids, wife does. Wife accidently forgets her birth control. Man has more kids. Man leaves wife? Doesn't matter. He will always have to pay for those kids.



Did they talk about how many children they wanted before getting married? Did he ever say to her before they were married "I've always wanted a boy." I don't believe this is fair to either of them. Men have as much of a right to have children as women do.
GhostUser is offline  
#6 Old 11-30-2003, 01:22 PM
Beginner
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by christy13 View Post

Ooh, good point. Is the same required for an abortion?



In many places, fathers can put court injunctions against abortions if they are willing to take full custody of the child.
GhostUser is offline  
#7 Old 11-30-2003, 01:23 PM
Beginner
 
Christy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,414
But I feel that it's ultimately her decision since she has to carry it to term. And in this society, the woman ends up doing most of the work. I know there are exceptions, but I'll risk flaming to say that it's true in most cases. And she's 35 with 2 kids already!
Christy is offline  
#8 Old 11-30-2003, 01:25 PM
Beginner
 
SunnyK's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by kristadb View Post

If your friend forces her husband into signing, their marriage is over. If he forces her to have another child that she doesn't want, their marriage is over. So, they had better do some serious talking, compromising, and soul-searching, or they are going to head downhill fast.



My thoughts exactly. I really don't know the husband very well, this was all very new news to me.



I'll look into the abortion and vasectomy questions....
SunnyK is offline  
#9 Old 11-30-2003, 01:28 PM
Joe
Beginner
 
Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 5,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnyk View Post

My friend laid this one on me last night: She wants to get her tubes tied, her husband's signature is required by Ohio law, and he doesn't want to sign.



...



Comments appreciated.



I'd like to see what the law actually says. It probably prohibits health care providers in Ohio from performing such procedures without spousal consent. But I'm guessing that there is nothing to stop your friend from just driving across the state line and getting the procedure done out of state.
Joe is offline  
#10 Old 11-30-2003, 01:29 PM
Beginner
 
KC Kid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,225
we've come a long way baby??
KC Kid is offline  
#11 Old 11-30-2003, 01:29 PM
Beginner
 
Kreeli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,049
the bottom line is, the father is not the one that ends up having to go through 10 months of pregnancy, however many months or years of nursing, and all the physical, emotional, and physiological changes associated with these things. as a bio-mom to two kids i can tell you that my body, mind and spirit are forever altered.



this woman can just refuse to have sex with him from here on out if he won't sign.



but i'm confused. don't ALL major surgeries require a signature from the patient's next-of-kin?
Kreeli is offline  
#12 Old 11-30-2003, 01:32 PM
Joe
Beginner
 
Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 5,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreeli View Post


but i'm confused. don't ALL major surgeries require a signature from the patient's next-of-kin?



No. Not here in the US they don't. This sort of thing is very rare, almost unheard of, AFAIK.
Joe is offline  
#13 Old 11-30-2003, 01:33 PM
Beginner
 
Kreeli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,049
also, there is no way for him to force her to have another baby, and there is no guarentee that, even if she did change her mind, the baby would be male. what if she had another girl? would he just keep trying to breed with her until a boy child came out? she could end up having 10 or more kids! this is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard of.



sounds to me like these two should have gotten this issue sorted out before they got married. counselling is definitely in order.
Kreeli is offline  
#14 Old 11-30-2003, 01:33 PM
Beginner
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by christy13 View Post

But I feel that it's ultimately her decision since she has to carry it to term. And in this society, the woman ends up doing most of the work. I know there are exceptions, but I'll risk flaming to say that it's true in most cases. And she's 35 with 2 kids already!



In this society, they are able to have adult conversations over who will be the primary caregiver to the child and make responsible decisions.



And he's 29 with 2 kids already.



Perhaps I view this differently. I see child creation as something that requires two people, so two people get equal say. I'm sorry if women are the ones who have to carry the child for 9 months, but that doesn't give them the right to veto (unless, it would put her into physical jeopardy).



I don't agree that she should have her husband sign it, no. We are all on the same side here on that matter.



I do believe that he has as much say in the matter as her, however.
GhostUser is offline  
#15 Old 11-30-2003, 01:35 PM
Beginner
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreeli View Post

also, there is no way for him to force her to have another baby, and there is no guarentee that, even if she did change her mind, the baby would be male. what if she had another girl? would he just keep trying to breed with her until a boy child came out? she could end up having 10 or more kids! this is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard of.



sounds to me like these two should have gotten this issue sorted out before they got married. counselling is definitely in order.



"force" was the wrong word. Talk her into it?



That's why I suggested adoption if you want a certain gender. Relying on nature is a bit too much of a lottery.
GhostUser is offline  
#16 Old 11-30-2003, 01:38 PM
Beginner
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreeli View Post


this woman can just refuse to have sex with him from here on out if he won't sign.



If she does that, then she might as well tell him to go find someone to knock up and have his boy instead of her. Then again, I'm assuming that he's the type of man that cares if he gets sex more then once a year.



It's a mess, no other way to describe it.
GhostUser is offline  
#17 Old 11-30-2003, 01:39 PM
Beginner
 
Kreeli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,049
sorry, but the "it's only 9 months" thing doesn't hold water with me. this is my main problem with most of the pro-life arguments, too. the only people who can literally say that the 40 weeks of pregnancy are the only time the mother's body and mind are put under strain or stress due to raising of children are the ones who haven't been through it.
Kreeli is offline  
#18 Old 11-30-2003, 01:46 PM
Beginner
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreeli View Post

sorry, but the "it's only 9 months" thing doesn't hold water with me. this is my main problem with most of the pro-life arguments, too. the only people who can literally say that the 40 weeks of pregnancy are the only time the mother's body and mind are put under strain or stress due to raising of children are the ones who haven't been through it.



But he also goes through it for the rest of the kids life, does he not? My dad cares as much for me when I was sick, as my mother.



I really dislike how men are not treated fairly in reproductive decisions. It pisses me off, to be honest. I know many men who care as much for their children as women do, yet are screwed over in custody battles b/c of the woman being the queen of all when it comes to the children. It pisses me off. Always has. Always will.



Maybe I have only been exposed to men who take care of their children as much, or more then, their wives/gfs. But they have as much right to have a child as a woman has the right to say no.
GhostUser is offline  
#19 Old 11-30-2003, 01:51 PM
Beginner
 
Kreeli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,049
sorry, i don't agree. and neither would most of the mothers i know. certainly a man's life is forever altered too, but in very different ways; and society is still set up in such a way that no matter what, a man can pretty much walk away from the kids, and the mother of his kids, whenever he wants. often with very few or no consequences.



i know your boyfriend is doing a marvelous job of caring for your stepchildren while their mother is slacking. but i am very confident in saying that he is the anomoly, and not the norm.
Kreeli is offline  
#20 Old 11-30-2003, 01:52 PM
Beginner
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
I've made my points in this thread and won't bother to come back.



Obviously, I am like a man in this regard - I can't possibly understand or make an informed decision because I haven't had a biological child.
GhostUser is offline  
#21 Old 11-30-2003, 02:08 PM
Beginner
 
Kreeli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,049
experience is a great teacher.
Kreeli is offline  
#22 Old 11-30-2003, 02:27 PM
Joe
Beginner
 
Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 5,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnyk View Post

My friend laid this one on me last night: She wants to get her tubes tied, her husband's signature is required by Ohio law, and he doesn't want to sign.

...



Comments appreciated.



Here's a comment. I spent some time with Google trying to find this supposed Ohio law and found nothing like it.



I also looked at the Ohio statutes site.



http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/laws.cfm



http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing...-h.htm&cp=PORC



Again, I found nothing like this supposed law. The closest thing I found was a requirement for spousal consent if a married woman is to receive artificial insemination, and there are other consent laws relating to medical procedures for the mentally ill, the retarded, and the like.



Now, it's possible that I just missed it or it is too new to be in the statute books yet. If anyone on VB can find me the text of the law, I'd be very interested to look at it.



But as of now my tentative conclusion is that this whole thread is based on a hoax.
Joe is offline  
#23 Old 11-30-2003, 02:43 PM
Beginner
 
VealPrincess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 371
"I really dislike how men are not treated fairly in reproductive decisions."



not treated fairly? it's only been in the last thirty years that women have FINALLY gotten a totally independent voice when it comes to reproduction. the choice of a man to reproduce is totally and completely different than the choice of a woman to reproduce. and she should have the ultimate say because it affects her entire being - mind and body. forever. it's about bloody time we had the final say.



men not treated fairly? i'll say what has been told to women time and time again:



tough.luck
VealPrincess is offline  
#24 Old 11-30-2003, 02:46 PM
Beginner
 
Kreeli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by VealPrincess View Post

it's only been in the last thirty years that women have FINALLY gotten a totally independent voice when it comes to reproduction.



word up, my sister. and if this alleged law turns out to be fact, it's proof that we still don't. also, any rights or freedoms we've gained in the last 30 years are still being eroded and chipped away at by the current US administration. our grip on our reproductive freedoms is still tenuous at best.
Kreeli is offline  
#25 Old 11-30-2003, 03:08 PM
Beginner
 
Kreeli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,049
hmmm, i did some googling of my own and came up with this:



Quote:
It is said that marriage always has entailed some legislatively imposed limitations: reference is made to adultery and bigamy as criminal offenses; to Missouri's general requirement, Mo.Rev.Stat. ยง 453.030.3 (1969), that, for an adoption of a child born in wedlock, the consent of both parents is necessary; to similar joint consent requirements imposed by a number of States with respect to artificial insemination and the legitimacy of children so conceived; to the laws of two States requiring spousal consent for voluntary sterilization; and to the long-established requirement of spousal consent for the effective disposition of an interest in real property.



from this page: http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/...ems=%7Bbody%7D



it doesn't say which two states, but apparently this law is in effect somewhere.
Kreeli is offline  
#26 Old 11-30-2003, 03:27 PM
Beginner
 
Thalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,902
I live in Ohio, have never heard of something like this. I wonder if it is an old law that was changed and no one told this doctor, or the doctor has his/her own ideas and is just pulling a lot of bs on this friend.



Laws like this have had a hard time being upheld in the case of abortion, I would think they'd have a much harder time being upheld in the event of tubes tied.



I think your friend should call a lawyer and call this physician's bluff. Overall, sounds like the friend in question has deeper problems.
Thalia is offline  
#27 Old 11-30-2003, 05:35 PM
Beginner
 
MisaLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 178
Has your friend looked for another doctor? A lot of doctor's require spousal signature, but it may not actually be a law. (It may be, I don't know.)
MisaLady is offline  
#28 Old 11-30-2003, 05:40 PM
Banned
 
Life2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,791
Come to Oklahoma. I had mine tied without permission. It would take you one trip for the office visit and the lap had me in and going back home in 5 hours. If you are serious, I'll check the laws here for sure.
Life2k is offline  
#29 Old 11-30-2003, 05:41 PM
Beginner
 
SilverC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,009
What a stupid, outdated law!!



The idea that anyone over the age of 18 needs another person's consent to have surgery done to THEIR body is ridiculous!



What happens if the woman is single? Does she have to get her daddy's permission?
SilverC is offline  
#30 Old 11-30-2003, 05:42 PM
Beginner
 
sandiemac's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post

No. Not here in the US they don't. This sort of thing is very rare, almost unheard of, AFAIK.



as long as the paitent is mentally competent they can sign consent for any surgery....if not competent then the next-of-kin, legal guardian, power of attorney or whatever has to give permission. most states require paitents designate a healthcare surrogate when having surgery in the event of an "incident" during the procedure that would render them incompetent.....
sandiemac is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off