What is your opinion on permanent birth control? Should a person be allowed to have it before having children? Should insurance cover it? What about for people who have health problems, should be be able to opt in to this?

What is permanent birth control?

Basically anything that is either extremely expensive to reverse (with a chance of failure) to things such as removal of the uterus.

Originally Posted by The Wandering Poet

Basically anything that is either extremely expensive to reverse (with a chance of failure) to things such as removal of the uterus.

Can the term sterilization be substituted for permanent birth control?

Removal of the uterus has to be done for many medical reasons other than birth control. I'm pretty sure most people who want to avoid having kids will choose a birth control option that's a lot safer and much less severe than a surgery.

I will think on your questions and respond later.

---------- Post added 08-03-2016 at 10:41 PM ----------

Looking up permanent birth control options and will share some of the stuff I find here

The permanent birth control method for women that most people are familiar with is tubal ligation (also known as getting your tubes tied). And for men, it’s vasectomy. Both are surgical methods that permanently prevent pregnancy.

Essure® | Your Options

Essure® is the only permanent birth control you can get with a non-surgical procedure.

Sterilization is another term for it yes.

True Salvete, but what of people who don't want a child specifically to not pass their genes to the next generation? Doctors will argue with a patient very heavily if a patient tries to be sterilized.

My impression is that tubal ligation and vasectomies are the patients' choice?

It seems like the doctor would of course tell them all the possible side effects and consequences and remind them that it is irreversible.

I am sure the doctors make a lot of money to perform those though so it still works out for them in the end, if the patient chooses that route.

They do, but some will refuse to forward someone to a specialist who can do the procedure.

Ah, I see.

---------- Post added 08-06-2016 at 04:19 PM ----------

To answer your questions, my opinion on permanent birth control is that it should be the individual person's choice after discussing this with their wife/husband and doctor. Yes, a person should be allowed to have permanent birth control before having children. Being a father or mother is not the be all end all for everyone. Especially in our human society. I do think people who have health problems should be allowed to have permanent birth control unless it would worsen whatever health problems they might already have.

Why would they need to consult their wife/husband beforehand? While a good idea, a spouse does not have ownership of their ability to have children. Even if a person is, say, single. They shouldn't need to consult anyone extra.

Okay, that makes sense. I agree with what you just said and have crossed out that part of my answer

I think anyone should be allowed to do anything they want to with their own bodies. I think it should be covered by insurance. I think a lot of doctors are hesitant because it's a big decision and life changes. A person at 18 may not feel the same way about children that they feel at 30 or when they're more stable in life and possibly with a partner that changes the picture. Doctors are still people. I think they don't want to feel responsible for the anguish someone could potentially feel later when they've had a procedure that can't (or is highly unlike to) be reversed. I think maybe permanent birth control should be done with alongside a plan B (for people that want it) such as freezing eggs/sperm for that just in case. But bottom line, I don't feel anyone should be told they can't do something wih their own bodies.

An important part of this discussion is the difference between the treatment of male and females who seek permanent birth control.

It's a lot easier for males to get doctors approval for the procedure then females. Which comes down to ingrained sexist belief of how motherhood should be the goal for every woman.

Even women who already have a child, or multiple children can sometimes be turned down from the procedure due to their age. It's a little ridiculous to be honest.

I don't think anyone should have to jump through hoops to gain access to these procedures. If birth control is covered under someones insurance then these procedures should be included.

Now - the question of health problems is curious to me. Is this asked along the lines of sterilization of those who are 'unhealthy'? And who do you think fits into this category?? Or are you simply talking about individuals who - for non-childbearing related issues would need to remove all or part of their reproductive systems?? The later doesn't really fit with the discussion, as it's less elective in those cases.

Of course, we could be talking about a young women with a history of cancer in the family, looking to prevent cancer in the uterus by early removal. That would be an interesting case - though unfortunately I feel as if most doctors would turn her away.

Regarding health issues, when you know that your family line has extremely severe genetic coding, some people don't want to have children. It's not a matter of not wanting the child itself, but knowing that the child's life will be impaired potentially from birth or result in a very short lifespan.

I can understand not wanting children for that reason; along with perhaps not having the capacity to raise a child yourself - but the idea is rooted in anti-disability rhetoric that values healthy/able bodies over unhealthy/disabled ones. (And I don't think these individuals should have more access to these services then another - unless of course having a child would put them at risk, but again, less elective in this case)

Regardless though - the choice to bear children is an individual one, and valuing bodily autonomy each individual should have the final say in their reproductive organs.

I do not know what the guidelines are for what things are covered or not covered by insurance. My impression was that elective procedures such as botox injections for the purpose of reducing wrinkles on your face are not covered by insurance. Permanent birth control in a perfectly healthy adult seems to fall into the category of an elective procedure, so I am not sure if it would be covered by insurance.

Actually, would anyone happen to know whether or not permanent birth control is currently covered by insurance?

Symphony of the Night:, it depends on the insurance. Some will only cover it if the procedure is done during a C-section, others will only cover it if medically necessary, some won't cover it at all, and the beautiful few will cover it regardless of reason.

Considering overpopulation though, it seems a reasonable thing to invest in within the country. Too many people are making children on accident and not enough people are adopting.

And yes, most don't cover birth control and the like type procedures. Many of them require paying out of pocket.

The Wandering Poet - I wonder if the people who are making children by accident are the same people who would be considering permanent birth control, though. I did not look up any numbers or anything, but I would assume a larger percentage of the people making children by accident are young, uneducated, and/or economically disadvantaged.

Considering public schools educate on safe practices, even the low educated should be able to understand the concept. The problem is people who fail to use birth control to begin with, hoping the pull out method will work in their favor.

Actually, most states do not require that schools educate on safe practices or even sex education in general.

From: These Maps Show Where Kids In America Get Terrifying Sex Ed









---------- Post added 08-21-2016 at 01:07 PM ----------

and there is more detail here State Policies on Sex Education in Schools from the website of the National Conference of State Legislatures

That's pretty sad results. So the school can't teach it, and the parents wont teach it.

But doesn't have to be medically accurate?!?!? WHAT!?!

Yeah I don't know why that is...I agree with you that it is pretty sad

So really... before permanent birth control should be made widely available, we need to seriously reduce the number of accidental pregnancies being created by poor education. It's no wonder we have so many teen pregnancies now.

I think it used to be that more people abstained from sexual relations until marriage, or that society frowned upon children born out of wedlock. I wonder if today's more widespread acceptance of young people having sexual relations without being married -- and even without being in relationships -- might be one reason behind the teenage pregnancies or children out of wedlock we see today