What We Missed
A Canadian doctor refuses a young woman a tubal ligation.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: What We Missed .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14267
Re: tubal ligation-- It doesn't surprise me in the least. As a childfree person, I've been investigating tubal ligation for as long as I can remember, and I know I'll get laughed out of the office until I'm at least a few years older. Despite the fact that I'm old enough to sign contracts, die in foreign wars, and decide to *have* children, I'm not mature enough to decide *not to have* children. *sigh* It's not like children aren't a "permanent decision" either.
ALL of the doctors that I've been to have denied me a tubal ligation so far. This isn't a new problem. I've also heard that a lot of women have been forced to get their husband's signature before getting a tubal ligation. It's really sick that we're still considered our husband's property.
This is part of the reason that I refuse to have sex anymore. I don't feel safe.
Although, I don't know if doctors still force women to get their husband's permission or not. I should look that up..
It would be interesting to know. The article seems to imply that her husband could get a vasectomy, though everything I've heard (2nd and 3rd hand, admittedly) is that a man under 25 won't find anyone who'll give him a vasectomy, and a man under 30 will have a long hard road of it.
I'm actually really confused now. I'm looking it up online and a lot of women are telling stories of how they couldn't get a tubal ligation because their husband didn't agree, or that their husband had to sign a form, but a lot of other websites are saying that you do not need your husband's consent anymore to have the procedure done. Maybe it depends on which state you live in. I wonder how that would work with single women?
I always get so restless when I think about this whole tubal ligation thing. Doctors are always so offensive about it. It's as if all I am is a fucking walking incubator.
My partner had to get a wife's signature before his vasecotmy. Since we're not married, he didn't need a signature. But I thought that it was interesting that if we were married, I would have to sign this "consent form." He's 31, and the age thing didn't come up at all. I wonder if it would if he were 5 years younger though.
Re: Maybe it depends on which state you live in.
I think it depends on whether the doctor is an arbitrary asshole who will make up requirements with no legal basis.
My fiance will be 29 in September. Four doctors in a row have refused to give him a vasectomy, citing that he's "too young" and "will change [his] mind".
This kind of dismissive attitude on the part of medical professionals makes me very angry, regardless of the gender of the individual seeking care.
Just. wow.God forbid you make any decisions about your reproductive organs without your husband's consent.
RE: Sexual harassment in India
It happens no matter what you wear or what you look like. Indian men even continue to harass Indian women after they immigrate to another country. I had the unpleasant experience of being groped by an Indian man (one old enough to be my father, no less) on the street in London and I was horrified. Of course, men of other ethnic backgrounds also harass women, but my experience has been mostly limited to people who look like me (Hispanic men in the US, Indian men in the UK); I once posted about it (http://community.feministing.com/2009/03/whats-been-bothering-me-or-int.html). In any case, it's absolutely an attitude thing, not a clothing thing.
I am going to be clinging to the hope of Dr. Carhart until I see it realized! How amazing that there is someone brave enough to step up to that plate after what happened to Dr. Tiller. All I know is that if he sets up in Kansas, I am going to do everything in my one-little-person power to support him and his staff any way I can.
Regarding the tubal ligation, don't read the comments unless you love assholes. There's a whole host of nonsensical & ridiculous assertions in them.
I got the Essure sterilization procedure at age 24. The first doctor I approached on it was willing to do it, even though I had no children.
Don't give up! I researched doctors offering this in my area and tried to pick the one that I could tell was pro-choice. Also, I called and asked the doctor if she would be willing to do one on me before actually going to make any kind of appointment.
I think since Essure has started being offered it's become at least somewhat easier for younger women and women without children to have this done. For anyone out there who hasn't even tried to see if they could get it done, I would definitely recommend they do if they know they want it.
Just read about the tubal ligation article on another site and had to come see if it was posted here.
Interesting to see the doctors are just sooo concerned to keep women from making a mistake they'll regret.
It isn't as if this woman doesn't already have one child and another on the way. It is a medical procedure and one that she has every right to get. It is legal.
If a doctor can legally put fat from a woman's butt into her face ( without concerning him or herself with the regret factor)or insert synthetic products to 'enhance' her breasts then by default this surgery refusal becomes less about her well being and more about Patriarchial rights to assert dominance over female bodies because obviously we don't know what is best in our own lives.
Sorry about any rambling. This just really burned me up.
Re: sterilization: I am a late 20’s woman who does not want children, and I become infuriated reading stories about men and woman that have been denied sterilization. However, keep in mind that doctors just as readily deny young childless men vasectomies as they deny sterilization to young childless women. It’s not so much an issue of others controlling women’s bodies, as others controlling the reproduction of both men and women.
If I may be a devil's advocate on the tubal ligation story... doctors' reluctance to carry out the procedure on younger people is often based not on sexism but because it is so difficult to reverse. No doctor has an obligation to perform any procedure he or she does not feel is detrimental to the longterm happiness of the patient, as early tubals or vasectomies so often are. There are many other long-term yet non-permanent options for contraception: IUDs, depo-provera, or just the plain ol' Pill come to mind. (yes I know that they all have drawbacks, but so do tubals.)
The key here is that doctors also refuse vasectomies to young males for the exact same reasons, meaning their often isn't a sexist bias.
Now this is all based just on my experiences... maybe I've just been lucky. I've never heard of anyone requiring a husband's signature for a tubal, but if true, ignore the above and call that doctor what he is: a patriarchal sexist SOB.
Er, I meant to say... "No doctor has an obligation to perform any procedure he or she *IS* detrimental to the longterm happiness of the patient." Oops!
The problem arises when a doctor presumes to tell a patient that he knows more about his or her longterm happiness than the actual patient does. If risks have been explained it is no longer the doctor's call. That is the case with a male or female patient. Why have these procedures if they aren't used for family planning as they obviously are meant to be?
And the doctors that DO deny patients better start paying for alternative methods and any mouth that comes along ( or subsequent abortions). Really only seems fair.
I disagree. It absolutely is the doctor's call. While I believe every individual has the right to sovereignty over their own bodies (and subsequently should be allowed to have this operation in some circumstances), that doesn't mean in order to satisfy this right people can nor should compel doctors (other individuals) to perform surgeries they have ethical or medically based (psychiatric) rationale for denying.
That would be trespassing on the rights and liberties of the doctor. They should and do have the right to choose what liabilities they are willing to endure and the ethical framework under which they will operate.
We all have that right. You might assert that hospitals, when faced with hiring decisions, should hire doctors willing to perform these surgeries under these conditions. But the decision still remains theirs.
You may not believe their orientation towards denying this procedure is legitimate, but that is a discussion entirely separate.
Indeed, it'd be interesting to compare to the reaction to a doctor who refused to amputate the leg of an apotemnophiliac, for instance.
If these people don't want to perform the procedure, then they shouldn't become doctors. Do you react the same way to doctors who refuse to prescribe birth control, or who refuse women the morning after pill?
Their own personal beliefs shouldn't effect whether or not I will have an unwanted pregnancy.
Firstly, I would propose that most resistance to tubal ligation procedures aren't the result of ethical considerations or 'personal beliefs' but the considered opinion that providing a procedure of this magnitude and permanence (at such a young age) would undermine the happiness and/or psychiatric well being of the patient at a later time. This is a legitimate medical assessment on the part of the physician who is trained to operate and be cognizant of psychiatric consequences.
Further, any time a doctor engages a patient they assume a substantial amount of liability - malpractice or otherwise. Any care they provide under this threat should be voluntary.
We identify and recognize a doctors expertise and knowledge as pertains to medicine and its repercussions while simultaneously asserting they should abandon their judgment when it doesn't align with ours. If it is the doctor's determination that an 18 year old lacks the maturity and/or life experience necessary to underpin a decision of this type, and therefore would impact their psychiatric well being later, they would be neglecting their role (engaging in malpractice) if they proceeded contrarily.
It may be your opinion that psychiatric considerations shouldn't influence a doctor's decision - that the only variable should be whether or not someone is physically capable of surviving a specific operation. I believe doctor's are responsible for considering more. They have the right to and should act in alignment with their comprehensive judgment without legal interference imposed in a majoritarian fashion and absent intimate knowledge of each case and circumstance.
In response to your question; I do not believe doctors should be legally compelled to prescribe any medication. As pertains to birth control, there may be medical rationale for why they don't want to manipulate the hormone levels in their patients. There may be other medical rationale I'm not aware of. In either case I would not override the doctor's considered judgment as pertains to their patient.
If their decision not to prescribe ('refuse' is not appropriate here as it implies an inherent entitlement) is based purely on ethical considerations, I still don't believe we should be legally compelling individuals to operate in a manner they deem unethical. They are not taking anything away from you, they are simply not providing a service.
As regards hiring decisions and the expectations any given hospital has in regards to the types of medical care their doctors will provide (and under what circumstances), that is mostly their prerogative. Perhaps with the institution of government run health care (lol..) we'll see a more widespread and prevalent set of standards for care (etc.) that will outline the circumstances under which doctors must be willing to operate in order to be employed by the government system. This is essentially what we have now but instituted on a larger level. Currently these standards are applied by the hospital entities themselves (and fluctuate from practice to practice) and obviously many allow for doctor discretion as pertains to tubal ligation.
A doctor with his or her own practice however can and should only provide the care they deem supports and cultivates the well being of their patients. We should not force them to do otherwise. They are providing a substantial and necessary service and you should be thankful for their presence. Your sense of entitlement is somewhat disturbing. The world isn't here to serve you.
Women who are looking into tubal ligation aren't ignoring other possibilities. I've looked into every other method of birth control, and I'm confident that tubal ligation would work the best for me. I KNOW for a fact that I never want to have kids, I'm 100% sure. I know that this procedure can hardly ever be reversed. It's not like I'm just rushing into the procedure without prior thought, this is something that I've spent long hard hours considering and thinking about.
I also don't think that young men have nearly as much of a problem as young women do when it comes to permanent birth control. I know a guy that had a vasectomy at the age of 18, and he didn't problems at all finding a doctor to do this procedure. I've been looking for a doctor to do this for me since I turned 18, and I've been rejected every time. People say that I have to be "at least 30 and have at least 2 kids". What the hell? I don't want ANY kids, that's the point. I can do something other act as a living incubator..
I think this is another case (like abortion) where people assume we women don't think it out but we really do.
I'm sort of the flipside of Siby. I've been saying for years and years that I don't want kids. The idea of having another live being growing in my body and then having to push it out my vagina terrifies and disgusts me. But I've also been thinking a lot about kids lately and was almost excited when I had a weird period recently. Knowing myself like this, I've decided to put off a tubal ligation for awhile to see if I somehow change my mind and decide that having a baby is worth it - or if I just go the adoption route, or just don't have kids at all.
So to suggest that women don't think it over thoroughly before deciding to ask for one is, to me, incredibly insulting and condescending.
And then there are ob/gyns like the one I had who, when I asked him about the safety of Essure, said very quickly that it wasn't safe at all and to come back to him when I was ready to have children - even though I had just finished telling him I didn't want to give birth to a child and would rather adopt if I ever wanted children. He wouldn't even give me the information that would allow me to decide for myself whether I wanted the procedure or not. So let's not pretend like doctors are always just kind protectors.
I'm sorry, but the fact that there are other, non-permanent forms of contraception doesn't mean I should have to subject my body to hormonal medications for decades just so my doctor can feel more comfortable. Not to mention the fact that none of them is 100% fool-proof. I've always been childfree and I really don't see why I should have the fear of pregnancy at the back of my mind until menopause. I don't want kids, I want permanent, non-reversible contraception so I can finally live in the confidence that I won't risk finding out I'm pregnant when it's too late for an abortion (and of course, I'd rather avoid having to have an abortion in the first place). Why is it so hard to understand?
As other posters already pointed out, most doctors don't have any qualms about performing elective surgery on young patients in order to enhance their "fuckability". Besides, a nose job is certainly no more reversible than a tubal ligation and a breast augmentation is no safer either...
There's zero excuse for doctors to refuse this surgery in particular. None whatsoever. It's just plain old patriarchy. And if their "conscience" doesn't let them do it, they should be forced to refer you to a colleague who's not so squeamish about women's right to self-determination.
On the separation of women in prisons:
There is nothing wrong with this. If the prison is separating couples, then they are preventing prohibited sex from taking place. If they are picking out the butch looking inmates, they're not actually separating by sexual preference, since a good deal of non-hets look more traditionally feminine.
Prisons routinely separate inmates by race. This is done when there are gangs in the prisons that re organized by race--all to prevent violence. The article also mentions that prisons often separate out homosexuals to prevent harassment and violence (which probably also means rape). If prisons can separate to prevent violence, why not to prevent sex?
So many things wrong, I don't know where to begin. Do you have proof that the "butch" women were having sex? What about the women they had sex with, why aren't they separated? How do you know the butch women won't have sex with each other? How do you know the more traditionally feminine women won't have sex with each other? Finally, segregation by race is also wrong. There has to be another reason for which there is actual evidence, not mere speculation based on hair length and skin color.
Re Harassment: There is an organization that has been dedicated to counter and study eve teasing in India called Blank Noise. They've got some interesting projects set up, like take a picture of the clothes you were wearing and post it to them, or what sort of insults were flung in different languages, etc.
They were quite enthusiastic during the Mangalore girls bashing issue. Maybe they'll take this up too.
I agree that it should not be so hard for women (or men) to find a physician that will perform a procedure to prevent them from having children.
The comparison of individuals who will not perform tubal ligations (which I believe are general surgeons or OB/GYNs) with cosmetic surgeons is silly. These are different individuals, with different qualifications and different specialties. It makes no sense to compare the two. Not even a little.
I also support physicians in make the choice of whether or not they will provide any care for anyone. I don't even think they should be required to help in an emergency situation (although they sure as hell should anyway). But in non-emergency situations, it should be completely up to a physician whether they provide a treatment or not based on their own assessment.
Better than blaming those who think its a bad idea would be to try to find doctors that are willing to perform them more easily, and to make that information more easily available in different localities so that people don't struggle with obtaining the procedure they want.
I suppose you think that police officers shouldn't have to help people in emergency situations, either. Or firefighters. And teachers shouldn't have to teach.
My point is is that if they don't want to do the job of a doctor, then they shouldn't become one. Their job is to provide advice and to provide the procedure.. If they don't want to provide the procedure, then they shouldn't be doctors. Just like the people who won't prescribe birth control or give women the morning after pill.
Re-"eve-teasing". I have just written a post on my blog (http://virtualityforreal.blogspot.com/2009/06/wtf.html) on why it would be so much a simpler solution to blindfold the men. I mean with wtf ideas like that, the counter has to be ridiculing wtf solutions. Decent public debate is not going to work.
Maybe inmates should be closer monitored in general and those who seek out to be on a good behaviour within the system be separated from the troublemakers.