Skip to comments.
Sterilization device for women approved
CNN ^
| Monday, November 4, 2002 Posted: 5:44 PM EST
| n/a
Posted on 11/04/2002 3:30:30 PM PST by Ed_NYC
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:01:33 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government has approved the first nonsurgical method of sterilizing women, a tiny device called Essure that could transform the way many women end their childbearing years.
Scientists long have tried, and failed, to develop a way to sterilize women without surgery; sterilization remains the most widely used form of birth control. More than 180 million women worldwide have had the procedure performed, including an estimated 700,000 Americans a year.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Unclassified; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: deathcultivation; sterilization
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-111 next last
1
posted on
11/04/2002 3:30:30 PM PST
by
Ed_NYC
To: Ed_NYC
I'm skeptical about this. Tubal ligations work wonders for most women.
2
posted on
11/04/2002 3:32:50 PM PST
by
hsmomx3
To: Ed_NYC
So now they can inflict endometrosis upon countless unsuspecting drones. And charge the same $$ for minimum intrusion. What a racket.
To: widowithfoursons
Sorry; endometriosis.
To: hsmomx3
General anesthesia is always dangerous. Anything that averts the need for it will save lives. Every year, a lot of people die from anesthesia complications during minor surgery such as wisdom tooth extraction, D&Cs, etc.
To: Ed_NYC
The third reich must be sorry they missed this one.
To: widowithfoursons
That's what I was just thinking. Purposely causing scar tissue to grow in the fallopian tubes? Ouch.
7
posted on
11/04/2002 3:45:51 PM PST
by
Utah Girl
To: nickcarraway
Jawohl!
Sickening that any woman hates herself enough to do this.
8
posted on
11/04/2002 3:46:04 PM PST
by
wideawake
To: Ed_NYC
Yikes! inserting small springs into your tubes!! sounds like a smaller version of the IUD, and we all know how well that turned out.
To: GovernmentShrinker
You've got that straight. Hundreds of thousands of people die from "minor surgery" like D&Cs every year. But they're inconvenient people.
To: Ed_NYC
Now, I'm not a doctor, but doesn't this sound a little dangerous? What if the woman develops too much scar tissue, could a tube burst - like in an ectopic pregnancy? And then there is the endometriosis that someone else posted about. I'd hate to be one of the guinea pigs they try this out on...
To: wideawake
Careful now...many women have very viable reasons why they would want to. Now, I don't like this concept, but I see nothing wrong with getting the "tubes tied".
To: unix
Well, I'm a believer in a seamless ethic of the sanctity of human life. We'll have to agree to disagree.
To: GovernmentShrinker
Now wait a minute. This, with all due respect, is the kind of medical ignorance that hurts people. I am an anesthesiologist, and I am here to tell you that general anesthesia in the hands of a competent physician is not dangerous. I anesthetize sick and well people alike, and in over 5,000 cases have never had an anesthesia related death.
Please note, however, that anesthesia in the hands of UNSKILLED people, including CERTIFIED REGISTERED NURSE ANESTHETISTS (CRNA), denstists, and office based anesthesia providers who are not board certified anesthesiologists IS dangerous, and this is where the majority of deaths occur.
Please, in the future, do not make sweeping general statements about which you know nothing about.
14
posted on
11/04/2002 4:23:42 PM PST
by
gas_dr
To: All
Well, I hate to be the one to say it first, but men can be sterilized a lot easier than women can. Local anesthetic, a little snip here, and voila! In two weeks (or less), good as new! With so many men having such difficulty keeping it in their pants, this may be an option to consider.........
15
posted on
11/04/2002 4:25:05 PM PST
by
Morrigan
To: wideawake
I'm a believer in a seamless ethic of the sanctity of human lifeHuh? You think it's okay for women to practice birth control by not having sex, but not okay for women to practice birth control by other means? Aren't her eggs just as dead?
16
posted on
11/04/2002 4:28:02 PM PST
by
xm177e2
To: wideawake
Well, I'm a believer in a seamless ethic of the sanctity of human life. We'll have to agree to disagree. Even I, as a pro-lifer, must realize that an unfertilized egg is not a human life. Life begins at conception, not when an egg leaves the ovary.
Whatever other moral standpoint you may have against birth control that merely prevents conception, try to keep your argument related to the actual facts. :)
17
posted on
11/04/2002 4:31:09 PM PST
by
MPB
To: gas_dr
"about which you know nothing about"? You may be a good anesthetist, but your grammar sure lacks something.
18
posted on
11/04/2002 4:33:11 PM PST
by
Clifdo
To: hsmomx3
It's a long recouperation afterward. If you have children at home, you may not be able to do that.
To: Morrigan
You're right Morrigan! For my husband and I this is what we have chosen. He sees no reason to subject me to major surgery from which recovery would be around 2 weeks.
A vasectomy is a much better option for couples who have chosen not to expand their families further. Much less risk involved all the way around.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-111 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson