Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Analogy for why you might want a tubal even if your husband has a vasectomy

When reading about the couple who was denied a tubal even though they had two children and their family was complete, one of the most frequent comments I noticed was people saying the husband should get a vasectomy instead.

I know a vasectomy is far less invasive than a tubal, and I know it is a solution that works for a huge number of couples. But some people might still want a tubal even if their husband has a vasectomy.

Here's why:

Suppose some evil bad guy has given you a bomb. For plot purposes, you can't just put down the bomb and walk away - it is somehow attached to you in a way that you, personally, are unable to remove. So you call the bomb squad for help.

The bomb squad arrives and tells you you're in luck - this bomb isn't going to go off by itself, it will only go off if exposed to open flame. So the bomb squad goes through your home and removes ever source of open flame. They remove your barbecue and your fireplace and your lighters and your matches and your candles and everything else in the house that might produce or require open flame. Then they say "Okay, no more sources of open flame, you're safe."

Now, by strict statistics, the vast majority of people aren't going to be inadvertently exposed to open flame. There are no sources of open flame in your home, and if you ever see any open flame anywhere else, you're going to run in the opposite direction.

But you still want them to get rid of the bomb, don't you?

3 comments:

laura k said...

It's a good analogy, but why don't people understand: we want to be able to control our reproduction independent of other people's decision and other people's bodies.

I can hardly believe doctors are allowed to deny tubals. It blows my mind.

Here's a question I think I haven't asked you. What does OHIP think is old enough to make this decision? Will you be able to get a tubal before menopause?

impudent strumpet said...

OHIP? I don't think OHIP cares about age per se. (Actually I don't know whether or not OHIP covers it - I'll have to find out.) I've been told that it's medically inethical, I've been told that the doctors are afraid of lawsuits (it recently occurred to me to offer to sign any waiver the doctor's lawyers might draw up, but I haven't been to the doctor since I got this idea), but basically it's up to the doctor's judgement. OHIP has nothing to do with it.

It's like if you went to the doctor and asked to have your arm cut off. The issue isn't going to be whether OHIP covers it.

Anyway, I've been told 30 and I've been told 35. Mi cielito has been told 30 and married (which...WTF???). My new doctor's a bit arrogant and I'm not sure how to manage him yet, but I'm definitely pushing for it once I turn 30. And if my blood pressure ends up high for the pill (it's normally borderline) I'm totally coming back with "Then it's time for a more permanent solution."

I don't mind the pill - I'm hoping I can still get the pill if I need it after I'm sterilized for menstrual regulation and all that good stuff - I'd just rather be sterile. If I were fussing with diapragms or something unpleasant like that, I'd be much more aggressively pursuing sterilization.

laura k said...

Oh sorry, I thought it was also a coverage issue. I didn't realize it was solely a doctor issue, which is bad enough.

I loved being on the pill, and - like you - if I had had to deal with messy and/or unreliable contraception, I would have gotten sterlized way earlier.