Ah, like with what happened with me?
Why should the doc who performed a proper tubal, that worked for a good solid decade of boot-knocking have to deal with my body getting frisky and trying to do what evolution planned a female to do [pop out a sprog]? Wasn’t my original doc’s problem my body repaired itself. <shrug> It did come as a surprise to me, however.:eek::smack:
Why bother with a doctor? Just head over to your nearest rancher raising pigs or cows and ask him to do it. They’re pretty experienced. Probably done more castrations than any doctor you can find. Just daub some antibiotic ointment on the area after he’s done snipping, you’ll be fine in about 2 weeks. You may experience some itching but that will subside.
There are even some great neon colors for the Cone of Shame nowadays.
Ha! Thanks for the laugh, I needed it. 
It certainly wasn’t a good tubal if it ended up failing later on, though. 
You don’t say.
Nonsense: that’s like saying breast cancer recurrence after a mastectomy must mean the mastectomy wasn’t properly done. That’s not how human physiology works.
The fact is that human bodies are very complex living organisms in a constant state of change and development, and there’s no such thing as an absolute 100% guarantee of permanent effectiveness for most types of medical procedure.
A surgeon’s job is to perform a prescribed surgical procedure correctly according to best-practice medical guidelines. Not to guarantee a particular outcome as the result of that procedure.
Sure, as other posters have noted, a surgeon who commits actual malpractice or negligence in incorrectly performing a procedure can be sued for that. But that doesn’t mean that the surgeon becomes financially responsible for all the direct and indirect consequences of the malpractice.
Not even doctors who make mistakes should be sued. Any system where people are not allowed to make mistakes is obviously unworkable. People should try not to make mistakes; in other words they shouldn’t be negligent. But a mistake isn’t per se proof of negligence.
Besides, there’s no sterilization method that’s completely effective. We know of a woman who had four pregnancies while successively having more extreme surgeries to prevent them, the last of which was a complete hysterectomy with removal of the ovaries. Turns out she had duplicate internal reproductive organs, which is not as rare as I would have guessed. Indeed, one of my friends had three testicles, so somebody could have snipped “both” his vas deferens, or removed them, or removed “both” his testicles, and left him reproductive. I don’t know all the ways people can be reproductively surprising, and just the other day saw a sizable group photo of people who were born and raised as female, believing themselves female, whose doctors believed them to be female, but who all had XY chromosomes.
Medical things don’t work out 100% of the time even if nobody makes mistakes. And everybody makes mistakes.
No, universal health care should pay everyone’s pregnant and childbirth related costs.
Meh, why bother with such onerous expense when you can do it at home ? Bottle of whiskey, a couple of sturdy half-bricks and he should be good to go.
What about childcare related costs, though?
Isn’t the purpose of sterilization to permanently prevent fertilization and pregnancy? If so, then wouldn’t a sterilization which fails to do this be a case of the doctor screwing up?
Also, somewhat off-topic, but out of curiosity–if a man will get a surgery and in spite of the doctor doing everything perfectly, this man will end up dying as a result of this surgery, then should this doctor be forced to pay financial support to this person’s family and especially to this person’s children? After all, it is better to have this doctor pay this financial support than to have the taxpayers pay this financial support, no? Plus, in contrast to causing children to exist (which is a gift rather than a harm), leaving children fatherless actually is a harm. Plus, while this doctor wasn’t negligent, consensual sex likewise isn’t a negligent activity.
Why on earth would it be better to force doctors to pay every time a patient dies? I find it very hard to believe you’re serious in suggesting that.
Some surgeries are high risk even if done perfectly, but are worthwhile as not having surgery can be higher risk. If the risk of performing such a surgery is so high to a doctor, doctors are going to refuse to perform said surgery. End result, more premature deaths.
Why? Due to the causation principle, of course. However, perhaps there should be a distinction drawn between various kinds of surgeries–for instance, perhaps doctors should not pay financial support to their patients’ families if their patients die as a result of, say, heart surgery but should pay financial support to their patients’ families if their patients die as a result of, say, some kind of cosmetic surgery.
Read Kimstu’s post again:
A surgeon’s job is not to obtain a particular outcome. Their job is to perform a certain surgery to the best practice standards of the medical industry. You may pay them for the latter in hopes of receiving the former, but that doesn’t make your disappointment at the outcome of the surgery their financial responsibility.
Why exactly shouldn’t a surgeon’s job be to obtain a particular outcome, though?
For every invasive procedure that I’ve had, there was a form that listed the risks that I had to sign. If you have surgery for any reason, you (or a medical guardian) has accepted the risk. If there is reason to believe that the doctor didn’t follow generally accepted procedures, that is where malpractice rules come into play.
You might have accepted this risk, but your children certainly didn’t accept this risk.
Because that’s not how medicine or biology works. You are ignoring reality when you suggest that it should be the case.
Actually, I am simply advocating holding doctors responsible for the consequences of their own actions.