Thanks. But I totally think that's about our not knowing our changeable girly minds.(Although, yes, I support conversations about "Do you know what permanent is?" and "No take-backs")

This statement:

I acknowledged to my patient that the surgery was effective in preventing pregnancy. In terms of making her life better and her happier, though, the prognosis was poorer.

makes me think that the doctor is a condescending twat, no matter what their age/gender in relation to the patient. If I go to a doctor requesting a procedure, it is not their job to decide whether the results of that procedure will make me happy. It is their job to decide whether or not the procedure is a good idea medically. PERIOD.

And this:

Despite free will on her part, I would feel culpable if my actions made her life worse.

just cements it. He's not asking because he feels it's medically necessary, he's asking to make himself feel better. Which, also, not so much in the job description unless there is a medical reason to feel badly about it.

::considers how House would be as a gynecologist::

There was an episode involving a girl having a problem with the jelly she and her boyfriend were using. She brought the jar that jelly had come it. It was grape, I believe.

Good moment.

I think the headline (which may not have been at the doctor's choosing) was more paternalistic than his discussion. He's a human, he's not going not have opinions and feelings about his patients and their treatment. He's giving honest insight into his thought process.

Again, if he refused to perform the procedure, I'd think he was wrong, but why is it harmful to make sure the patient has thought it all through, particularly when it's an elective procedure? He's performing a procedure that produces not on medical results, but life results.

makes me think that the doctor is a condescending twat, no matter what their age/gender in relation to the patient. If I go to a doctor requesting a procedure, it is not their job to decide whether the results of that procedure will make me happy. It is their job to decide whether or not the procedure is a good idea medically. PERIOD.

I think what you're talking about pretty much goes against a the grain of movement in medicine (and patients' rights) -- which is all about treating the whole person, and acknowledging their humanity, rather than seeing them as parts and diseases.

OMG, I remember that. I'm not even like House but I would have flipped my shit over that.(OK, I'm a little like house, but socialized and oppressed away from the Queen Bitch that kind of power would make me.)

What Cindy said.

And the doctor most certainly did not select the headline. But I got my eye on him anyway.

I just thank the goddess that he didn't suggest that the husband should have veto power.

acknowledging their humanity

Acknowledging her humanity would include recognizing that when a person asks for birth control, it's generally because they think that preventing pregnancy will make them happy. His disagreement with this premise seems entirely based in his own issues -- he's not taking her into account at all.

why is it harmful to make sure the patient has thought it all through, particularly when it's an elective procedure

I said he was a condescending twat, I didn't say his treatment was harmful. There's a world of leeway between being a jackass and causing harm to your patients. Personally, I think doctors should strive to avoid both.