[mlp]

Cheekywhiskers, I don't think your analogy works. In the case of a vet, it's a human making a decision for someone else (an animal) that is not in the animal's best interests. That's different from the case of a doctor telling a woman she cannot be sterilized because she's not capable of making that decision, not yet having had children, or a sufficient number of children, or children of the *right* sex. There's also the fact that, medically, sterilization has benefits as well as potential negatives - after all, pregnancy and childbirth still have significant health risks, not to mention the costs (psychological, emotional, financial) of unwanted pregnancies and the decisions that go along with them, including lifetime effects on unwanted children.<br><br>
Strangely, so many doctors are willing to perform all kinds of cosmetic procedures, which are not without significant physical/medical risks, often to the point of mutilation and beyond.

 

[Myria]

My mom had to fight to get a tubal ligation when she was 25 - she had two children, but the doctor said she should wait in case one of us died.<br><br>
Baby has a genetic disorder, and once we have the money to do the tests to figure out if it's hereditary, whichever one of us it is will get sterilized. Hopefully a doctor wouldn't argue with that, considering that 90% of children with Patau syndrome die before their first birthday.<br><br>
I support the right of a doctor to refuse to perform a procedure that they disagree with - as long as they have a problem with the procedure itself, and do not try to play counselor in individual cases.

 

[Dutchabbey]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>mlp</strong> <a href="/forum/post/2698787"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Cheekywhiskers, I don't think your analogy works. In the case of a vet, it's a human making a decision for someone else (an animal) that is not in the animal's best interests. That's different from the case of a doctor telling a woman she cannot be sterilized because she's not capable of making that decision, not yet having had children, or a sufficient number of children, or children of the *right* sex. There's also the fact that, medically, sterilization has benefits as well as potential negatives - after all, pregnancy and childbirth still have significant health risks, not to mention the costs (psychological, emotional, financial) of unwanted pregnancies and the decisions that go along with them, including lifetime effects on unwanted children.<br><br>
Strangely, so many doctors are willing to perform all kinds of cosmetic procedures, which are not without significant physical/medical risks, often to the point of mutilation and beyond.</div>
</div>
<br>
Exactly. It's a perfectly legal, straight forward procedure and it's a decision that should be made solely by the adult woman requesting it. This antiquated patriarchal notion that women are incapable of making a rational decision about their own bodies as well as the mindset that not wanting children isn't just not normal but downright pathological needs to stop now. I'm sure a competent attorney could draw up a waiver that would indemnify the physician if, years later, the patient decided she made a bad choice if that's a determining factor behind their reticence to perform this type of surgery.