This is topic Are there hidden fees not included in forum New Message Board Members at Tubal Reversal Message Board.
Many people seem to imagine the fallopian tube is like a shoe lace that is tied in a bow to prevent pregnancy. As a tubal ligation reversal specialist, I wish it were that simple- then reversing tied tubes would be a whole lot easier!
Many people seem to imagine the fallopian tube is like a shoe lace that is tied in a bow to prevent pregnancy. As a tubal ligation reversal specialist, I wish it were that simple- then reversing tied tubes would be a whole lot easier!
This is topic Are there hidden fees not included in forum New Message Board Members at Tubal Reversal Message Board.
Over the holidays, I watched the video of my sister-in-law’s c-section. I was rather surprised that my brother-in-law was allowed to film it, as so many hospitals now refuse to allow the filming of births, particularly to avoid creating evidence for malpractice suits. This was a c-section resulting from several complications, and the video shows a bit of the preparation, the entire procedure, and the early resuscitation efforts on my nephew, who is fine now, but was floppy, unresponsive, and silent at the time. Meanwhile, I’m told by a colleague that the hospital where I work, which technically allows filming of births in its official policies, does not allow it in practice. I’ve been thinking that, should I ever become pregnant, having the option to film is both realistically and symbolically important to me. So I ask, would the ability to film a birth affect your or your partner’s choice of hospital or other birthing facility? On a related note, does knowing that your chosen facility does not allow filming reduce your confidence in the facility?
(My apologies if the poll looks crazy; this is my first use of addpoll.)
The Washington Post ran a piece yesterday, First U.S. Uterine Transplant Planned. The article examines questions such as whether enough research and animal experimentation has been done to justify attempting the procedure in humans, and whether this is an option that should be available because the uterus is not necessary for life, unlike other commonly transplanted organs such as hearts and kidneys. The transplant would be considered temporary, allowing a woman to bear a child but is not intended as a lifetime replacement uterus, as the baby would be delivered via c-section and the uterus removed at that time. A November 2006 article from New Scientist reported that a physician at New York Downtown Hospital had been approved by its hospital review board for such a transplant, following “the first successful uterus transplant in a non-human primate” (a rhesus monkey) performed at the University of Pittsburgh. Scientists interviewed for that article were also skeptical that the procedure had been properly vetted through research.