Spousal Consent for Vasectomy or Tubal Ligation - Essay Example

Topic: Married couples should be legally required to gain spousal consent for vasectomy/tubal ligation. Everywhere in the world, nations speak of birth control and spacing to regulate the increase of global populace amid excruciating issues on poverty, especially in economically-challenged country. Health departments have discussed thoroughly the different methods of birth control and have gauged this advocacy as part of the Millennium Development Goal of United Nations as enshrined in its concern for maternal and child healthcare. As popularly known, methods of birth control and spacing are done by the use of anti-contraception pills, condoms, standard days method (SDM), IUD, tubal ligation and vasectomy. The last two methods are deemed irreversible form of birth control as these involved surgical operations and alterations of biological parts to totally cease on giving birth (Eaton, 2004). But must this be legally legislated to make it mandatory for spouses to gain consent prior to the actual vasectomy and tubal ligation operations? This researcher argues that legislation to require spousal consent is unnecessary and irrelevant. The causes of explication however, will vary depending on national culture and personal influences surrounding the decision-making of either spouse. In western countries, radical feminists may argue that they have the sole possession of their body and thus, have the sole and autonomous rights for its care (Dorff, 1998). They may interpose that they have the sole dominion of their bodies, therefore, the power for decision of making to undertake tubal ligation reside in their freewill and its theirs alone, regardless of spouse’s objection and disagreement. For them, they do not need consent from their male counterpart about undertaking surgical operation for tubal ligation. Thus, may find it disinteresting to legislate a policy under civil code that would require consent from the male counterpart. For men, there is less debate on whether or not they would need to gather consent for vasectomy noting with certain biological fact that they do not bear the cycle and discomfort of pregnancy and of giving birth. Often, this is resorted when a man has hernia or when there are evident health challenges for the female spouse to take pills, IUD or ligation (Dorff, 1998). Hence, consent is insignificant and immaterial here because he is left only with the compelling option to take the necessary measure for birth control. Therefore, legislation of a policy that will oblige men to seek consent from wife is not relevant. The situation is there and his only remedy is to assume responsibility for control. On another purview, many women are socially influenced by the governing culture of a nation or of their respective communities. It cannot be denied that the religious sector and the patriarchal system extol the dominance of male voice within family structure, thus, limits women’s decision-making over her body (Matysiak & Vignoli, 2009). Society likewise interposes that under religious and traditional views, marriage will always be as a contractual relation between a man and woman with the intention to procreate children and make them as useful citizens of the nation. Opting for birth control, especially that irreversible one, (Janowitz, Higgins, Rodrigues, Arruda, Smith. & Morris, 1985), must be mutually decided by spouses in conjunction to doctrines and principles upheld by culture and by their religion. It should be noted that while religion, especially Christianity, oppose all forms of contraception citing it as a sacrilegious act. But they’ve never been deft about the need for tubal ligation or vasectomy when either of the spouses is exposed to health-related problems and thus, necessitate to totally stop giving birth (Janowitz, et al., 1985). Often, when debates spark about this, religious leaders would prefer that the matter would be discussed with the guidance of their pastor or priest. Under this context, consent from both spouses is significant before actual vasectomy or tubal ligation is undertaken (Janowitz, et al., 1985). It’s a personal interaction and decision-making done within their private confines. Such doesn’t mean however, that consent, for it to be generated, should be legislated as a compelling force for couples to get and render consent to and from each other (Matysiak & Vignoli, 2009). Legislating it as mandatory policy for couples wanting total birth control vitiate freewill and constitute an impingement of person’s right to privacy in their decision-makings (Matysiak et al., 2009). It’s a decision from the discretions of couples alone and legislators should not pry into this privacy, otherwise, such will constitute a violation of constitutional guarantees (Matysiak et al., 2009). Social workers and medical practitioners, on the other hand, concern themselves about maternal and child healthcare. Around the world, most of those who suffer severely from the impact of poverty and of marginalization are women who have routinely confined themselves in child-rearing, child-bearing, and wifely duties. Being economically dependent to their husband, they lack sense of autonomy to decide what could be good for her health and for their children’s welfare (Mavalankar, & Bharati, 1993). Thus, it has been an increasing concern for healthcares and social development, to empower women and to educate them on birth control as a means to decongest them from anent ill-effects of declining economy. Experiences bared that the issue has become a cause of conflict among couples, specially those who got misinformed about the use of contraception, of IUD, or about the effects of vasectomy and tubal ligation to health. It would rather be odder and more conflicting if matter on consent will be subjected to legislation because the state’s direct participation in generating consent from couples on vasectomy and tubal ligation will confuse them all the more. It is sufficient for the state to educate couples about responsible parenting, about birth spacing, about deciding the number of children that they should bare based on their income brackets, and about maternal and child health care (Mavalankar, & Bharati, 1993). But for the state to intervene in generating consent from couples, such constitute intrusion of their personal rights to decide on their own. While it’s agreeable that consent is a significant factor in familial relations as illustrative of respect, but such needs no legislation. Medical experts, on the other hand, would require either of the spouses to manifest one’s consent when surgical operation for castration and tubal ligation is undertaken. But this an ethical practice required from physicians to insure that patients came under their attention fully aware of the implication of their decisions. This is a different kind of consent—a relational expression between client and physician. To emphasize, consent is about freewill. It is the expression of a personal right. It’s the soul of human freedom. It’s about a person choosing and deciding. Compelling them to give and get consent on matters relating to castration and tubal ligation is like exacting from them such consent in an authoritarian fashion. This contravenes democratic principles and constitutional rights. As both consenting adults who share matrimonial rights, they can interact, communicate, discuss about their fate as family—and for some reason, deliberate about undergoing vasectomy or tubal ligation if they found this as a necessity for birth control, but the generation of consent need not be subjected to legislative action. People decide reasonably for each other and for what is good for them. The states, through its departments, can only advise, make recommendations, develop programs, persuade them to opt for responsible parenting, and for better healthcare (Mavalankar, & Bharati, 1993). But the state should not exact consents from couples about total birth control thru legal compulsion. Should they offer consent to each other and decide to take either vasectomy or tubal ligation, they should review the risks and benefits thereof (Focus on the Family, 2012). References Eaton, M. L (2004). Ethics and the Business of Bioscience, California: Standford University Press California, pp. 33-39. Dorff, E. (1998). Matters of Life and Death: A Jewish Approach to Modern Medical Ethics. P.A.: Philadelphia, pp. 121-127. Focus on the Family (2012). What are the pros and cons of vasectomy and tubal ligation? Helping Families Thrive. C.O.: Colorado Springs. Janowitz, B., Higgins, J.E. ,Rodrigues, W., Arruda, J.M., Smith, J., & Morris, L. (1985 January). Sterilization in the northeast of Brazil. Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 215-221. Mavalankar, S. J. K. & Bharati, S. (1993). Strengthening Primary Health Care Services: Insights from Qualitative Research in West India. IIMA Working Papers WP 0115, Research and Publication. India: Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad. Matysiak. A. & Vignoli, D (2009). Finding the right moment for the first baby to come: a comparison between Italy and Poland. MPIDR Working Papers WP-2009-011, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Germany: Rostock., pp. 19-24. Read More