babble » blogs » Strollerderby
Strollerderby
Doctors Goof — Sterilize Mom of Nine
If you’ve already got nine kids, getting your tubes tied is certainly not an outrageous decision to make. Perhaps especially if you’re only 35, unmarried, unemployed, and at least partially dependent on public assistance. But even so, it is not a decision to be made lightly. It is a surgical procedure with all the risk that implies (mortality rate in industrialized nations is 4 in 100,000) and may cause post-procedural side effects. So imagine the outrage of a woman who went into the hospital for a cesarean section and came out with a tubal ligation as a bonus!
It is unclear whether the doctors made a conscious decision that Tessa Savicki needed to stop having children or if there was just a colossal screw-up, but from what the Boston Herald is reporting, something definitely went horribly wrong after Savicki delivered baby number nine. Her intention was to have an intrauterine device (IUD) — a reversible form of birth control — implanted after the delivery but received the tubal ligation instead. State and federal regulations require a written consent form to be signed at least 30 days in advance of permanent sterilization; as yet, the hospital has not been able to produce such a document.
Now, one could argue that nine kids is already a lot and, if she somehow becomes able to care for and support the ones she already has — her mother has custody of three of them — and still wants another, there are plenty of kids waiting to be adopted, but in the real world where people are (or should be) treated like, well, people, I don’t think that should be anyone’s decision but her own. I’d have to say that if the facts really are as they are claimed to be, the doctors, nurses, and the hospital are in a lot of hot water.
Photo: kevinrosseel
Go Back To Strollerderby
13 Comments
PlumbLucky commented on Jan 05 10 at 11:49 amRead this burp on another site – turns out she has sued before because she bought and used expired spermacide which led to another of her children. I thought a couple things in that story didn’t add up – one of which being that she brought the IUD into the operating room in its packaging, with her when she went to have the latest C-section. Doesn’t that seem like something that would have to procured by the hospital staff? And doesn’t your womb need a little bit of time to heal and shrink before an IUD would work? I think I’ll wait til the whole story comes out…something smells a mite bit funky on this.
Courtney commented on Jan 05 10 at 3:19 pmFwiw, my ob wouldn’t do an iud for at least 6 weeks after I gave birth, and even then would rather have waited 8 weeks.
Mistress_Scorpio commented on Jan 05 10 at 11:22 pmAlso, she claims the same “BYO IUD” story after her eighth child, but says the drs forgot to put it in. Yes, something is not quite right about her story.
Maggie commented on Jan 06 10 at 12:01 amYou know, this was often done in the 60s and 70s by paternalistic doctors who judged the woman’s lifestyle, marital situation or occupation as unworthy. Major civil rights issue that quickly resulted in the consent laws cited. My bet is that this will come down to the judgment of an individual doctor, whether it’s the surgeon or an intern, who thought nine was enough.
And from my perspective cutting out a part of someone’s internal organs without permission constitutes aggravated assault.
Barb commented on Jan 06 10 at 8:13 amWhen I had my c-section, my doctor asked me at least three times if I was having my tubes tied at the same time as my c-section… as he was delivering my baby!
I’m married, and at the time I was 30 and it was only my second child! I had never, ever inquired about getting my tubes tied. So if all this info about her shifty ways hadn’t come out, I could see how it might have been a doctor/hospital’s mistake.
jenny tries too hard commented on Jan 06 10 at 10:30 amShe sure does sound shifty, but if the doctors did sterilize her without her consent they ought to lose their licenses immediately. Whether she had nine kids or one, it’s still her body.
Carrie M. commented on Jan 06 10 at 1:16 pmgood point jenny.whatever our opinions are of her as a mom she still has civil rights
Rachel commented on Jan 06 10 at 7:45 pmyes they are (in trouble), and yes she does (have civil rights), but in the best of all worlds a woman receiving public assistance who’s lost custody of 3 of her 9 children would receive some serious counseling before picking up the next check. There’s nothing about this story (except the outcome) that’s in the best interest of those 9 kids!
maeby commented on Jan 06 10 at 9:31 pmso she’s sue happy, with 9 kids with a bunch of different fathers, on public assistance, doesnt have custody of three of her kids…and i’m supposed to feel bad about this? I don’t. Not at all.
ChiLaura commented on Jan 06 10 at 10:14 pmno matter if she loves to sue, has “too many” kids, whatever, no one should be sterilized without consent. next you know, we’ll be sterilizing the destitute, drug addicts, imbeciles, people with more than 2 kids, and, you know, all those pesky Jews, too.
PlumbLucky commented on Jan 08 10 at 9:05 amI still think I’m going to wait to judge the situation til it all comes out.
I still refuse to feel badly for her. She’s made some bad decisions (as evidenced by her early age at the birth of her first, the sheer number of kids, the fact that she has lost custody of a few) and the taxpayers are shelling out for them, not her.
Lula commented on Jan 10 10 at 8:40 pmChiLaura nails it. We did so well all throughout the 20th century, violating the basic human rights of American Indians, Puerto Ricans, African Americans, and “poor whites” with eugenic sterilization — you know, cuz they were all “feeble-minded”. Always sounds like a good idea until it’s you who’s on the table.
The docs should be penalized for malpractice if the sterilization was only a mistake. They should be penalized worse if the sterilization was deliberately done without consent.
mindy marshall commented on Apr 10 10 at 7:02 pmIt’s funny that I am running across this story because I am writing a paper about how I am arguing that the state should be able to cut or fix parents that have more than one child in state custody or have lost there kids to someone else. Why continue to have kids if someone else has to take on the responsability to care for them? Why have kids if you can’t give them cloths that fits them or a new pair of nike’s. Why torture a child that way. There is more to be concerned about then the women’s right. What about the child’s
Add your take:
Note: Babble is a supportive, diverse community. We encourage a range of opinions,
but any unduly hostile comments will be removed.
Comments are delayed up to 15 minutes
Joslyn Gray 
Amber Doty 
Julianna Miner 
Monica Bielanko 
Sierra Black 
Meredith Carroll 
Carolyn Castiglia 
Sunny Chanel 
Madeline Holler 
Wendy Michaels 
Rebecca Odes 
Danielle Smith 
Danielle Sullivan 
Katherine Stone 
The Walt Disney Company supports Babble as a platform dedicated to honest, engaged, informed, intelligent and open conversation about parenting. However, the opinions expressed on this site are those of individual parents/writers and do not reflect the views of Disney. In addition, content provided on this site is for entertainment or informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, or safety advice.
13