PoAC: Reproductive hullabaloo

[velvetpage]

The 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.

Comments

[michellinator.livejournal.com]

The problem is that our government seldom stops with "guidelines." A fine example can be found here: http://shadesong.livejournal.com/2871261.html

I've never smoked. I'd be happy if nobody ever INVENTED smoking, because sucking everyone else's exhale has done and continues to do some serious damage in my life. But, it's still legal, so I take my alleregy drugs and keep going. I take a crapload of vitamins and supplements, and my current weight isn't pushing my blood pressure up like before. My problem with treating my body as if it's "pre-pregnant" is that I also take three different drugs for psychiatric treatment that are NOT recommended during pregnancy. Someday, I may have to choose between my sanity/control of my actions and reproduction. I'd rather that choice be mine, not my government's.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Without saying more than I have to, let me just say that that post is rather one-sided. We have no way of knowing what the doctor was actually thinking - we only know what she thought he thought.

If it's true, it's frightening. I'm inclined to think it's an exaggeration, though.

[michellinator.livejournal.com]

After having found myself forced to claim irregular periods to get birth control prescribed (by the only doctor my then-insurance covered, who worked in a building owned by a Catholic-run hospital) I'm more inclined to believe that doctors can be swayed by morality that isn't even their own. This doctor made it clear that she could ONLY prescribe pills (no shots, nothing that is strictly to prevent pregnancy) if I was having ::wink,wink:: irregular periods. I said, "Oh, they're terrible, 27 days, 29 days, I never know!"

This is a scary, scary time to be a woman in this country. With what's already happening in South Dakota, I don't think it's advisable to allow any more government control of our health care. "Recommendations" are fine, as long as it stops there.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Not to downplay your experience - because it absolutely should not have been that way - but obtaining bc pills is a long, long way from obtaining hard-core meds for a chronic, debilitating neurological disorder.

We're agreed about the recommendations - as long as that's all they are, they're okay.