Surgery Practices

[Meshavrischika]

If a woman can have saline implants in her breasts, and have her cellulite suctioned out, and have her nose changed by surgery... why can she not (in most cases) elect to have a tubal ligation to prevent having any children, or after she's had children, choose to have a hysterectomy? How vastly different are these things? Why the ability to alter one and not the other? I guess my question is, is it ethical for a physician to say "yes, I'll change your entire face with multiple surgeries" but not say "yes, I will help you live your life the way you want in the only almost 100% certain way"...??? Personally, I think it's strange they make a distinction as they are all "non-essential" when in these contexts.

 

[keith99]

Not most cases in California or Germany. Of course Texas is in a different world.

 

[Meshavrischika]

you might be right there.

personally, I'd love for them to take everything but my ovaries out. I'm done usin' it, why keep it and deal with it?

 

[beechy]

I didn't know that there was anything (except may the signing of an informed consent) preventing a woman from getting a tubal ligation if she wants one ...

 

[Meshavrischika]

legally, no, but many physicians just won't do it and insurance of course, won't cover it in many cases. that's why I said physicians making the choice.

 

[HannahBanana]

I personally would like to get a hysterectomy, just because I hate having periods (especially since I get horrendous cramps and nausea during the first few days of my period), yet I also don't want to take synthetic hormones (whether those hormones are in BC pills, an IUD, the Nuva Ring, or Depo shots). Yet no doctor would even think of performing a hysterectomy on me, a 21-year-old woman, even though I know I don't want to ever be pregnant and I know that I won't end up regretting my hysterectomy. It's horribly unfair. So I totally agree with you, ElsanRandiMom.

 

[Meshavrischika]

I just really fail to see the difference, and don't understand why it is medically "okay" do do plastic surgery, but not reproductive procedrues on women (seeing as men can have a vasectomy with less hassle from what I understand)

 

[HannahBanana]

I just really fail to see the difference, and don't understand why it is medically "okay" do do plastic surgery, but not reproductive procedrues on women (seeing as men can have a vasectomy with less hassle from what I understand)

I know. I honestly wonder why that is. Is it just plain sexism, or is it yet another way for doctors to prevent against being sued? Hmm. I might need to look further into this, and see if there's anything I can do to change it.

 

[cantata]

Well, in the UK you can get hysterectomies on the NHS, although most doctors would advise younger, childless women against it, all else being equal.

 

[Meshavrischika]

can i move there for a bit (just about 6-8 weeks plus recovery time? lol)

 

[cantata]

can i move there for a bit (just about 6-8 weeks plus recovery time? lol)

Sure! I've got an airbed you'd be welcome to

 

[Kroger99]

If a woman can have saline implants in her breasts, and have her cellulite suctioned out, and have her nose changed by surgery... why can she not (in most cases) elect to have a tubal ligation to prevent having any children, or after she's had children, choose to have a hysterectomy? How vastly different are these things? Why the ability to alter one and not the other? I guess my question is, is it ethical for a physician to say "yes, I'll change your entire face with multiple surgeries" but not say "yes, I will help you live your life the way you want in the only almost 100% certain way"...??? Personally, I think it's strange they make a distinction as they are all "non-essential" when in these contexts.

Like was mentioned before, I'm not sure that there is anything legally preventing this, but being that this is America, I don't think that any doctor should have to do any operation that he/she doesn't want to do. Nor do I think that it should even be an option for an insurance company to cover it, unless there is posibly some medical condition.

I can't say that I really know anything about the procedure, but if we are not careful, our awsome healthcare system will go to crap.

 

[selfinflikted]

I just really fail to see the difference, and don't understand why it is medically "okay" do do plastic surgery, but not reproductive procedrues on women (seeing as men can have a vasectomy with less hassle from what I understand)

I could only venture a guess here, because I'm not an expert on standard medical practices. I would assume, though, the difference would be that breast augmentation and other plastic surgery is not irreversable like having a hysterectomy. /shrug just a guess

 

[jayem]

If a woman can have saline implants in her breasts, and have her cellulite suctioned out, and have her nose changed by surgery... why can she not (in most cases) elect to have a tubal ligation to prevent having any children, or after she's had children, choose to have a hysterectomy? How vastly different are these things? Why the ability to alter one and not the other? I guess my question is, is it ethical for a physician to say "yes, I'll change your entire face with multiple surgeries" but not say "yes, I will help you live your life the way you want in the only almost 100% certain way"...??? Personally, I think it's strange they make a distinction as they are all "non-essential" when in these contexts.

It's ethical in the sense that a physician has no moral obligation to perform an elective procedure if, in his bona fide judgement, there is no medical indication for it. True, that's a subjective standard, but much of medical judgement is subjective. I think most GYNs would be very hesitant to remove a completely healthy uterus and fallopian tubes purely for sterilization. By which I mean there are no symptoms. No pain, unsual bleeding, fibroids, abnormal Pap smears, family history of cancer, or any other pathology. Cosmetic surgery is different. Because a misshapen, unattractive nose, or flat breasts can and do cause symptoms--i.e., depression or low self-esteem--even if there is no pathology in the organs themselves. And in any event, most reputable plastic surgeons won't operate on someone they judge to have unrealistic expectations or have a body dysmorphic disorder where they fixate on some slight, or even imagined bodily imperfection.

Let me ask this: what do you think about those (fortunately) rare patients with apotemnophilia (AKA body integrity disorder)? Where they want to have a perfectly healthy limb (or several) amputated? And they sometimes mutilate themselves to achieve it. I know there is at least one British surgeon who will amputate offending limbs just because the patient asks for it. Is this ethical?

 

[selfinflikted]

I retract my guess about the irreversability thing. It just occurred to me that doctors hand out vasectomies like candy, and those are irreversable as well.

 

[quatona]

I retract my guess about the irreversability thing. It just occurred to me that doctors hand out vasectomies like candy, and those are irreversable as well.

I suspect that this double standard points to remnants of patriarchal paradigms.

 

[wanderingone]

legally, no, but many physicians just won't do it and insurance of course, won't cover it in many cases. that's why I said physicians making the choice.

Insurance doesn't cover plastic surgery most of the time either when it's purely cosmetic.

 

[wanderingone]

I suspect that this double standard points to remnants of patriarchal paradigms.

Exactly. When I went in for a consult for a tubal at my hmo the I was faced with a doctor who it turned out didn't perform the procedures, he was opposed to them on religious grounds - he did not tell me this until after an exam I considered an assault that reflected his distaste for a woman who wanted to end her child bearing years.

(This is about 13 years ago, I did file a complaint, as did apparently many other women.. I don't know if he's still a doctor, but I do know he ended up getting the boot from the HMO)

My insurance company covered tubals, but you couldn't schedule the surgery sooner than 30 days after the consult and you had to take a @#%^%@$%#$%#% class about tubals and how permanent they are before you could actually have the darn thing. The day of the surgery I had to sign 3 different statements that mentioned that I understood the surgery should not be considered reversible.

I complied with their treating me like a child incapable of making a choice with my own body because I wanted the tubal.

I am still happy with my choice to have a tubal, I am still disgusted with the way men are willing to trust that a woman who wants a double E breast implant on her 100 lb frame is perfectly emotionally stable and needn't be questioned but a woman who wants to make a choice about reproduction needs to be controlled

 

[wanderingone]

I retract my guess about the irreversability thing. It just occurred to me that doctors hand out vasectomies like candy, and those are irreversable as well.

Well a hysterectomy is not necessary for sterilization, a tubal ligation does not include removing an organ, it's simply destroying a small section of fallopian tube.

A hysterectomy purely for convenience is something most doctors would reasonably question. Although I'm not sure what the implications are if the ovaries are left intact, I'm too lazy to find all the pamphlets my doc gave me when it looked like I was headed for a hysterectomy.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I believe that hysterectomies are only done for a severe medical reasons, like cancer.

However, I have heard it is a bit difficult for women to get tubal litigations, especially if they haven't had any children. Personally, I think that people should be allowed to sterilize themselves as they please once they hit 18. If they regret the choice down the road, they can always adopt children (it's not like there is any shortage, at least of older children).