Preconception and the CDC
May. 17th, 2006 06:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
javasaurusOK, I've read the CDC preconception guidelines several times now. I don't see what the hubbub is about.
First, there is a national problem: 85% of all women give birth at least once, and about a third of the children have health problems. Also, about half of the women unintentionally get pregnant at least once. So there is definitely a problem. Part (maybe most) of the problem stems from a lack of knowledge and a lack of available/appropriate health care. A large part of the country can't afford health care. The intent of the CDC guidelines seems to be to address these issues.
Second, if you are physically able to get pregnant, then you might get pregnant, whether you want to or not. Accidents happen. Being "childfree" is not 100% effective against pregnancy.
Third, there has also been some hubbub about the focus on women's health, not men's. Note that the guidance is all about getting a healthy child at the end of the pregnancy, not about getting pregnant, for which the man's health and activities would be important. Frankly, the man's health doesn't really matter much for this process (yes, I know there are exceptions to this). If he's got reproductive problems, most likely the swimmers won't find their target, and pregnancy doesn't happen. Unfair as it may seem, the woman gets to be the incubator.
The guidelines seem focused primarily on providing healthcare and information that was not previously provided. Even those with health insurance may find that insurance doesn't always cover preconception issues. It is not about withholding medicine from those that need it, but making the patient aware of the effects of the medicine on a potential pregnancy.
Several have posted about doctors that won't prescribe certain medicines to women of child-bearing ability, even if the woman never plans to have children. That has nothing to do with the current guidelines, but about poor doctor-patient relationships. Get a different doctor.
Yes, I understand that some are afraid of how the guidelines will be abused by over-conservative doctors and politicians. However, it is apparent that those same docs and politicians will do so anyway, while the guidelines work towards providing much needed information and resources to those who don't have them.
First, there is a national problem: 85% of all women give birth at least once, and about a third of the children have health problems. Also, about half of the women unintentionally get pregnant at least once. So there is definitely a problem. Part (maybe most) of the problem stems from a lack of knowledge and a lack of available/appropriate health care. A large part of the country can't afford health care. The intent of the CDC guidelines seems to be to address these issues.
Second, if you are physically able to get pregnant, then you might get pregnant, whether you want to or not. Accidents happen. Being "childfree" is not 100% effective against pregnancy.
Third, there has also been some hubbub about the focus on women's health, not men's. Note that the guidance is all about getting a healthy child at the end of the pregnancy, not about getting pregnant, for which the man's health and activities would be important. Frankly, the man's health doesn't really matter much for this process (yes, I know there are exceptions to this). If he's got reproductive problems, most likely the swimmers won't find their target, and pregnancy doesn't happen. Unfair as it may seem, the woman gets to be the incubator.
The guidelines seem focused primarily on providing healthcare and information that was not previously provided. Even those with health insurance may find that insurance doesn't always cover preconception issues. It is not about withholding medicine from those that need it, but making the patient aware of the effects of the medicine on a potential pregnancy.
Several have posted about doctors that won't prescribe certain medicines to women of child-bearing ability, even if the woman never plans to have children. That has nothing to do with the current guidelines, but about poor doctor-patient relationships. Get a different doctor.
Yes, I understand that some are afraid of how the guidelines will be abused by over-conservative doctors and politicians. However, it is apparent that those same docs and politicians will do so anyway, while the guidelines work towards providing much needed information and resources to those who don't have them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 05:09 pm (UTC)She gave the kid up for adoption.
STILL, any doctor she went to refused to do it until she hit 35. She'd already proven she didn't want to have/keep a kid, but they wouldn't let her get permanently sterilized.
For her 35th birthday, she got a tubal ligation.
Why is it that doctors think that the magic age is 35, and women can't seriously make up their minds before then?
Java, it's not always so easy to find a new doctor. With respect to having babies, few doctors are willing to risk that a woman won't change her mind later and sue them for causing her to have to go the test tube route. Some (like my previous example) will tell a woman flat out "she needs to have more babies", even if she's already had as many kids as she wants and wants to stop. But (and I realize you've never had this told to you, considering you'll never have to worry about getting pregnant), the vast majority of doctors out there will flat out tell you they won't do it before you're 35, because they're afraid you'll change your mind.
What truly irks me is they even tell this to women and/or couples that shouldn't be having babies in the first place, because of medical/physical/mental concerns.
I wouldn't object to this whole thing so much if they discussed it as "reproductive planning" rather than as a "pre-conception" thing. I wouldn't object so much if it weren't for the sheer number of doctors out there who WON'T allow a woman to no longer be "pre-conception". It's damned difficult to find a doctor who will agree to sterilizing a woman before she's mostly done with the "safe" reproductive years, and half of them won't do it unless your HUSBAND agrees. If you're single, forget it.
Yeah, we get shafted six ways from sunday.