PoAC: Reproductive hullabaloo
May. 17th, 2006 12:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
velvetpageThe issue is this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html?referrer=emailarticle
Basically, it lists some new federal (American) guidelines saying that all women of reproductive age should treat themselves, and be treated by the health care system, as pre-pregnant. That means taking folic acid supplements, not smoking, maintaining a healthy weight - you get the idea.
I have some comments about this.
1) No one is forcing anything here, or suggesting that anything be forced. These are guidelines for family pratitioners and other front-line medical personnel to include in their regular care, elements relating to a woman's potential fertility. I would imagine that if your doctor asked some of these questions, and you told him you never intend to be pregnant and would abort any pregnancy that happened by accident, he would back off - and if he didn't, you should vote with your feet and find a new doctor. These are simply on the list of things women should be doing for optimal health.
2) I see no assumption here that every woman is simply a womb with legs. What I see is an understanding that 80% of women will be mothers at some point in their lives, and about 50% of pregnancies in North America are unplanned. Given those stats, it seems reasonable to offer counselling about reproductive health to women coming for regular medical attention, as part of a general check-up. It's always up to the woman to refuse to take the advice, of course.
3) These guidelines are sensible. They should be part of regular healthy-living counselling even for women who will not be having babies - yes, even the folic acid one.
4) The spin that has been put on this recommendation is unfortunate, because it raises spectres of forced pregnancy for those who are already concerned about that. However, throwing out the recommendations because you're afraid of the source is throwing the baby out with the bathwater - if you'll forgive the expression.
5) While the main source of the recommendation is the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, which is a somewhat suspect organization, the backers of the recommendation are not tainted that way. They include the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the March of Dimes, and other agencies concerned with two main categories: birth defects, and women's health. Therefore, I would say any bias that exists in targetting women only is a function of the goal of the guidelines, which is to reduce birth defects in unplanned pregnancies. This goal is almost entirely independent of a man's role in reproduction, making it logical to leave him out.
Final analysis: the spin was unfortunate, but the recommendations are reasonable in and of themselves. I'm going to find something more worthy to be scared of.
Basically, it lists some new federal (American) guidelines saying that all women of reproductive age should treat themselves, and be treated by the health care system, as pre-pregnant. That means taking folic acid supplements, not smoking, maintaining a healthy weight - you get the idea.
I have some comments about this.
1) No one is forcing anything here, or suggesting that anything be forced. These are guidelines for family pratitioners and other front-line medical personnel to include in their regular care, elements relating to a woman's potential fertility. I would imagine that if your doctor asked some of these questions, and you told him you never intend to be pregnant and would abort any pregnancy that happened by accident, he would back off - and if he didn't, you should vote with your feet and find a new doctor. These are simply on the list of things women should be doing for optimal health.
2) I see no assumption here that every woman is simply a womb with legs. What I see is an understanding that 80% of women will be mothers at some point in their lives, and about 50% of pregnancies in North America are unplanned. Given those stats, it seems reasonable to offer counselling about reproductive health to women coming for regular medical attention, as part of a general check-up. It's always up to the woman to refuse to take the advice, of course.
3) These guidelines are sensible. They should be part of regular healthy-living counselling even for women who will not be having babies - yes, even the folic acid one.
4) The spin that has been put on this recommendation is unfortunate, because it raises spectres of forced pregnancy for those who are already concerned about that. However, throwing out the recommendations because you're afraid of the source is throwing the baby out with the bathwater - if you'll forgive the expression.
5) While the main source of the recommendation is the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, which is a somewhat suspect organization, the backers of the recommendation are not tainted that way. They include the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the March of Dimes, and other agencies concerned with two main categories: birth defects, and women's health. Therefore, I would say any bias that exists in targetting women only is a function of the goal of the guidelines, which is to reduce birth defects in unplanned pregnancies. This goal is almost entirely independent of a man's role in reproduction, making it logical to leave him out.
Final analysis: the spin was unfortunate, but the recommendations are reasonable in and of themselves. I'm going to find something more worthy to be scared of.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-17 09:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-17 09:34 pm (UTC)