[wideawake]

Verbal consent is given ALL the time....In fact "medical necessity" consent is also given ALL the time.

For life saving measures.

If the ligation were necessary to save her life that would be one thing. This article portrays it as an extra, elective surgery.

Would you care to expound on that statement?

Sure. Sterilizing people is immoral. Artificial interference in a person's generative faculty for non-life-threatening reasons is contrary to right reason. If you don't want to have any more kids then you can either take advantage of your natural periods of infertility or you can refrain from intercourse.

It's pretty clear that this woman now deeply regrets her decision to neuter herself.

[Osage Orange]

For life saving measures.

Sorry but...you are wrong. I happen to work in the health care field...and verbal consent is given quite often.

If the ligation were necessary to save her life that would be one thing. This article portrays it as an extra, elective surgery.

I believe that the article say's that the RN witnessed ( Standard Procedure ) the verbal exchange of the pt. with Dr. Coburn. I would imagine that in Dr. Coburn's best medical judgement...it was prudent to "tie her tubes".

Sure. Sterilizing people is immoral. Artificial interference in a person's generative faculty for non-life-threatening reasons is contrary to right reason. If you don't want to have any more kids then you can either take advantage of your natural periods of infertility or you can refrain from intercourse.

It's pretty clear that this woman now deeply regrets her decision to neuter herself.

Neuter??? Interesting choice of words...I can see this is some sort of "pet" issue for you....

No problem...

Take Care,

[Know your rights]

Artificial interference in a person's generative faculty for non-life-threatening reasons is contrary to right reason.

How so?

[codercpc]

Many times a womans tubes are scarred, and that is what causes a tubal pregnancy (the fertilized egg is trapped in the scar tissue unable to travel to the uterus to implant). In this case is was probably assumed if one tube was scared the other one may be to.

If she became pregnant again she has an increased risk of another tubal pregnancy, this is a life threatening condition. So although the tubal ligation was "elective" it was also "preventative". I am sure they did not have time to do a dye test to see if the other tube was in fact blocked (the tubal pregnancy necessitated an immediate operation), and the woman was given the option of having the tubal ligation done at the same time, so she would not have to undergo another surgery at a later date.

This is a common practice, although I agree a written consent should have been attempted.