168 replies to this topic

[Dan]

I'm sure that if you wanted to get one you could pay to have it done privately.

Unfortunately there has to be limitations on what any public health service provides.

[Kat]

From my understanding it is because a tubectomy is a more risky procedure than a vasectomy. Also there are many more possible side effects after a tubectomy than a vasectomy. I could be mistaken, though. I agree it's not fair, but nothing about a woman's biology is fair

[Dan]

I haven't heard of anyone in my province paying for private practices but I will definitely look into it if I'm rejected for any reason.

I understand the need for limitations but I feel that as the woman who is actually tasked with carrying the child if they conceive, they should have a little more lenience than they are given, or in a perfect world, the same amount as men. It all just seems reaaaally backwards to me.

I don't think it's a purposely designed "Women vs Men" situation.

As far as long-acting contraception, women have many alternatives - all of which are more easily and reliably reversible than a tubectomy.

I can definitely understand why a health service might want to offer these cheaper, reversible and less risky contraception over a tubectomy (which I've heard is pretty invasive).

 

Men, on the other hand, only have the vasectomy option at present.

 

We're comparing apples and oranges really, but overall I think it's pretty fair, unless you're unable to use any of these long-acting alternatives.

[Kat]

I beat @Dan NEENER NEENER

[Romy]

In my circumstances, I am ready for a more permanent solution. I will be okay with just my husband getting a vasectomy, but I'd prefer if I at least had the choice to get the procedure done as well. If that makes sense. 

 

Almost lost my mother during her tubectomy.

She started hemorrhaging during the procedure and the doctors barely managed to stop the bleeding before it was too late. She still has problems with her menstruation because of it (she was in her mid twenties).

 

If your husband is happy getting a vasectomy, why push it? I know you're looking at this from a reproductive rights point of view but...pregnancy is still impossible if your man is shooting blanks right? I know I'm being a bit...bias but just weigh the potential risks associated with tinkering with your lady-parts especially if you don't need to.

Edited by Ivysaur, 24 April 2014 - 03:53 AM.

[Romy]

But you know there are risks with child birth too, right? Many women have died on the birthing table and recently my sister in law needed an emergency procedure after giving birth prematurely and she had to have a blood transfusion and since getting home has had a stroke..

I totally get what you're saying and like I said above, I will be satisfied with just Daniel getting a vasectomy, but this is a reproductive rights issue for me too. As a woman I can't help but look at it from this perspective. 

Besides all of the above, there are risks with a vasectomy too. Just yesterday there was an ambulance at my neighbors and after talking to her I discovered her husband had a vasectomy that day and passed out from the pain while attempting to pee. He hit his head on the sink and woke up in extreme pain and no idea where he was. 

 

Of course there are risks associated with giving birth to a baby. I'm not arguing that point.

 

I was just saying that getting the procedure done isn't necessary since your husband already agreed to a vasectomy. 

 

Making a small cut in your husband's scrotum or cutting your Fallopian tubes

 

Which sounds more risky?

[Dan]

At the end of the day I think all doctors are interested in keeping the safety of the patient of paramount importance.

If your husband can get a less risky and a less invasive procedure that gives the same results then surely they're going to be for that idea.

Reproductive rights are just that, reproductive rights. It's your choice what contraception you choose to use and I honestly don't think it's the goverments responsibility to offer up expensive invasive risky surgical alternatives to cheap, functional and mainly risk-free contraceptive options.

[Speedracer]

The law seems outdated, but I agree with Dan its probably just due to the risk and cost associated.The fact that most women that are going to get their tubes tied are in committed relationships probably just leads them to believe your partner could just get a vasectomy which is a simpler route.
 

If your husband is happy getting a vasectomy, why push it? I know you're looking at this from a reproductive rights point of view but...pregnancy is still impossible if your man is shooting blanks right? I know I'm being a bit...bias but just weigh the potential risks associated with tinkering with your lady-parts especially if you don't need to.

I believe that with a vasectomy there is a small chance of it growing back together so you become fertile again

[luvsmyncis]

Just stop having sex if you don't want any more kids. Duh! What a couple of dodos.
 

I agree it's not fair, but nothing about a woman's biology is fair

Hahaha!
Boobs are kinda nice, though. However, sometimes I feel like balls are better. No, you're right. It's not fair.

I have to agree with Dan. Especially if this is something you expect the government to pay for you. I think we should all have the right to do what we want with our bodies, but if you're expecting someone else to pick up the bill, then you really have to follow their rules. The men's surgery is much cheaper and less invasive. It's like a generic alternative, naturally that's what the insurance will prefer to pay.

I don't think it's wrong for health professionals to want to be absolutely sure the patient wants to go through with this surgery. People can be really fickle. They change their minds CONSTANTLY. Even if you're sure at 18 you NEVER want children, a health care professional has to look out for your best interests, especially when it comes to procedures that are difficult to reverse.
 

A woman who is considered responsible enough to raise a child herself is not considered responsible enough to make the choice to not have them or not have more?

Do they cover abortions? I wonder if those are cheaper than the tubes thing.
 

Every where I've looked and asked "why is it like this?" I'm given the answer "Because you might regret it." That's not a good enough reason to me, if I wanted a tattoo and was told, "No.. sorry, only if you're 25 or already have three tattoos, because you might regret getting it" I'd be like lolwat.

 

The government pays for tattoos up there?!

[NapisaurusRex]

Down here on state insurance, it's the same way. You have to have 2 or more kids by 21 or be the age of 25.

I have to ask before I can form an opinion though, do men have a 'biological clock ticking feeling' once they hit 30 or 40 or whatever? Probably not, since they have unlimited sperms?

[NapisaurusRex]

I have no idea but I don't think that should really matter either.
I know what baby fever feels like and I know I can survive it. I think most women who already have children will suffer empty nest syndrome but that doesn't mean they should have or even want another one.. you know what I mean?

Yeah. All right.

Then I believe that men should be able to whenever, as long as they have great odds of a successful reversal. They should only be able to have permanent things done after they turn 25. Women shouldn't be able to get tubes tied or whatever til after they're 25 also. In general, people don't have fully formed frontal lobes until after they're 25.

[NapisaurusRex]

What about if they already have children?

Then they should already know about the consequences of unprotected sex and plan accordingly.

(also, I assumed you didn't mean people shouldn't want kids after a certain age lol)

[Ali]

I've been asking every year since I was 21. Physically incapable of carrying a child to full-term but still able to get pregnant. Absolutely no reason for it not to be done because children are just not an option to us. NHS still won't do it because they consider me too young still, even though any pregnancy would put huge pressure on me physically, let alone emotionally and no baby would likely survive it. I do keep meaning to see if I can get it done privately.

[NapisaurusRex]

I've been asking every year since I was 21. Physically incapable of carrying a child to full-term but still able to get pregnant. Absolutely no reason for it not to be done because children are just not an option to us. NHS still won't do it because they consider me too young still, even though any pregnancy would put huge pressure on me physically, let alone emotionally and no baby would likely survive it. I do keep meaning to see if I can get it done privately.

This would be the exception, imo. It would be the kind of thing that would need different practices to verify though, in my perfect little world where everyone is fertile and I make all the laws.

 

 

People can still get pregnant while using contraceptives. But I catch your drift.

I can see myself being really annoying when I speak to my obstetrician about it, just because after talking to everyone here, I feel like I have a shit pile of questions for him. 

Ahh, those are circumstances I hadn't even considered. That's really unfortunate. You're in the UK, right? 

It's ok to be annoying. It's his job to answer your questions.

[Ali]

 

Ahh, those are circumstances I hadn't even considered. That's really unfortunate. You're in the UK, right? 

Indeed I am. Usually I'm very fond of the NHS, waiting times aside - this is the one instance where we really fall out. It is hugely irritating that I don't like children, don't want children and can't have children but I'm forced to keep my body in this limbo state for a few more years until they're really sure it's "what I want".

 

Arguably, constant advances in medicine mean there's a slim possibility - I think the best case (and really, we're talking miracle scenario) is that I could make it to 28 weeks in which case we would have a very premature baby but one that could survive. But I don't want to put us through that, I don't want to put a baby through that and that really is a very best case scenario. More likely is that we'd lose the baby early in my second trimester. They spent 10 years telling me that it can't be done, I've come to terms with that, the Boy has always known that, we've filled our lives with other things, only for them to turn around and say "well, maybe, but only just".

 

They will pay for the abortion if I do get pregnant though, and the pill is freeeeee. So that's all nice. But given the tiny percentage chance of us managing to have a baby, it seems more sensible to just do it my way.