We've been told no permanent options as we are (apparently) too young (30 and 35 respectively). This is despite the fact I was offered a more radical option of the girly variety 15 years ago, it shows how things change in medical circles!
Yeah - it was through my local PCT, and I was 30 when the approved it. My GP's a reasonable man, and was convinced fairly easily that I was making an informed decision.
After all, actually having children is even harder to reverse.
15 years ago, I was told I could have a hysterectomy for medical reasons when I was 25. I was 15 at the time. I didn't want it, as I would prefer not to have osteoporosis by the time I'm 45.
Now, despite the fact that we have been together for 7 years and shown no signs of even attempting to procreate, we are told that it's 'not PCT policy' to allow permanent methods of contraception to under-40's, if one or both partners is childless, regardless of the fact that, in this case, the childless half of the double act has severely impaired fertility, and has a very high risk of miscarriage with complications and ectopic pregnancy.
As it happens, we're pretty settled with the injection, although my nurse keeps reminding me that the longer I stay on it, the lower the chance I have of ever conceiving. She tells me this at least once every 6 months, despite the fact that my response is always "excellent, let's keep it going, shall we?"
Whilst the injection is working as well as it is, I think we'll stick to this. It has the added benefit of removing my endometriosis symptoms, so it's all good!
Hmm. I suspect this may be the thin end of the 'postcode lottery' wedge. You know where my PCT is - and the only thing the various doctors questioned was to make sure I knew that a) it was permanant and b) there's a very slim chance of it reversing itself naturally (although Mr Rajan's preferred procedure makes that vitually impossible).
Em's been on 'the pill' in various forms for over the last 10 years, but hving me done has less health complications - something I mentioned at the time and my Dr agreed with.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
redhillian
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-12-29 12:09 am (UTC)Do your local PCT offer this, and at what age?
We've been told no permanent options as we are (apparently) too young (30 and 35 respectively). This is despite the fact I was offered a more radical option of the girly variety 15 years ago, it shows how things change in medical circles!
no subject
Date: 2007-12-29 12:57 am (UTC)After all, actually having children is even harder to reverse.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-29 01:32 am (UTC)15 years ago, I was told I could have a hysterectomy for medical reasons when I was 25. I was 15 at the time. I didn't want it, as I would prefer not to have osteoporosis by the time I'm 45.
Now, despite the fact that we have been together for 7 years and shown no signs of even attempting to procreate, we are told that it's 'not PCT policy' to allow permanent methods of contraception to under-40's, if one or both partners is childless, regardless of the fact that, in this case, the childless half of the double act has severely impaired fertility, and has a very high risk of miscarriage with complications and ectopic pregnancy.
As it happens, we're pretty settled with the injection, although my nurse keeps reminding me that the longer I stay on it, the lower the chance I have of ever conceiving. She tells me this at least once every 6 months, despite the fact that my response is always "excellent, let's keep it going, shall we?"
Whilst the injection is working as well as it is, I think we'll stick to this. It has the added benefit of removing my endometriosis symptoms, so it's all good!
no subject
Date: 2007-12-29 01:48 am (UTC)Em's been on 'the pill' in various forms for over the last 10 years, but hving me done has less health complications - something I mentioned at the time and my Dr agreed with.