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.

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.

And ESPECIALLY when a person is living in the US in 2006 and already has (or is about to have) three kids. I can more easily imagine someone being conflicted about sterilizing a woman with no children (although of course I think a grownup can know her own mind about that), but unless the patient was exceptionally rich, I think it's fair to assume that having a fourth child would lower her (and her family's) quality of life. "What if they die in a fire" and "What if you re-marry" are bullshit questions, IMO.

which is all about treating the whole person, and acknowledging their humanity, rather than seeing them as parts and diseases.

The perspective I'm reading from the doctor though, is that she is making a poor decision based on hypothetical situations.

Like I said, this is the doctor projecting his/her own feelings onto the patient. S/he starts out by saying s/he believes it's a poor decision...but doesn't really give any details as to why s/he thinks that it is such for this particular patient.

The concern here is about the doctor's sense of regret, not the patient's. It seems to be a scattered piece. I'd be cool with it all if the piece were stronger, I think.

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.

I just don't think that questioning a patient's decision in the manner in which this doctor did so is acknowledging their humanity. To me, it comes off as questioning their maturity, their intelligence, and their knowledge of their own life and own desires.

And here's why: the doctor didn't simply offer a statement or two about the difficulty that reversing a tubal ligation could entail. If he had done that, I would consider it due diligence.

But instead he kept asking the patient questions -- "What about this? Well, what about THIS? But WHAT ABOUT THIS?!?" as if the patient hadn't fully considered her decision in an adult fashion, and needed to be reminded of all the ways her decision could destroy her life. That, in my opinion, is overbearing and paternalistic and condescending.