If you opt for a spinal—or an epidural if they have to extend the procedure—you can still request sedation. You’ll feel calm, then you won't feel anything at all.
With a spinal or epidural, you run the risk of post-op headaches, which happen quite often. Intubation carries a slight risk to your teeth. Those are the common minor setbacks; nothing major is looming, and for a healthy person, the risk is practically negligible.
Driving through the night toward Switzerland, and ever since I pulled out of Washington, D.C., there's been this knot in my stomach. "Hard times are coming," my grandfather told me as we said goodbye, fully aware of his situation. I would give anything to be by his side right now—to cheer him up, listen to his old stories, just be there. But I could barely escape the office this long weekend; my boss was hounding me on my cell all day, and I couldn't just leave my wife and daughters hanging. Damn circumstances 😢 I should clarify that for my first five years, I lived with my grandparents. They raised me and gave me everything they had. They constantly told me I was smart, handsome, and special, and eventually, I believed them 🙂, which shaped the person I am today. My grandmother passed away six years ago, and this goodbye feels like... well, I can't even go there. The hardest part is being this far away. It’s the burden and the curse of living abroad 😢
Just got back from Washington, D.C.; went to visit my grandfather. My aunt found a private retirement community, which took a massive weight off our shoulders (thank God). It’s in a beautiful spot near the foothills of the mountains, and the facility itself seems quite professional. However, the working conditions for the staff were a shock. It’s just a standard multi-story apartment building, but there isn't even an elevator (!). I didn't inspect the bathrooms personally, but my grandfather mentioned they have specialized chairs for washing bedridden patients, yet no lifts to move people into the tubs. On top of that, the rooms are tiny—maybe 130 square feet for a double room. There's zero space for wheelchairs, meaning every single patient transfer has to be done manually. I felt for the staff; mostly young, pleasant nurses. It takes either incredible dedication or total desperation to work in a place like that... The monthly fee is $1233, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. What are your thoughts?
rustymoose54 said:... regardless, they seem pretty discouraged after your constant warnings and all those psychological barriers you keep throwing up here ("fertility drops off a cliff after 30," "you need to rethink your priorities," "if only I knew then what I know now..." and so on).
You know who actually has the right to feel discouraged? Couples who have gone through three rounds of IVF without a single pregnancy. For everyone else, my stance remains the same: stop wasting time. Get to a specialist immediately and start treatment.
I was going to let this thread sink into oblivion to avoid rubbing salt in the wounds of women in such a difficult position. Hannah Scott69, it's your fault this topic resurfaced. 😉
frozenbison42 said:Sometimes the Russian people are more than willing to pay in blood just to ensure their enemy suffers...
Why would the average Russian care about Chechnya? Are they a suicidal nation?😕 You can't compare this to WWII, where there was a direct threat to survival, or even Afghanistan, which was an imperialistic mess typical of any dictatorship.
Steven Ruiz said:And, by the way, for everyone blaming the Russians. The operation wasn't premeditated; they were in the middle of negotiations. It turned violent because terrorists set off bombs just as negotiators were carrying out bodies they had already agreed to release. Children and other hostages used the chaos to try and escape, and the terrorists started shooting at them, so the Russians reacted. I believe anyone else would have done the exact same thing. Besides, how long could those kids have survived without food or water? One boy said on TV they were drinking their own urine because they were so thirsty. Honestly, I'm disgusted by anyone blaming the Russians for such heavy casualties. Cause and effect, people. Get with it. 🙄 Unless you've experienced terror yourself, there is no excuse for targeting children. I get that the Chechens are oppressed and that basic human rights are being violated there, etc., etc... but if you're that bitter, go express it in the Russian parliament instead of a school full of kids. Disgusting. Frankly, I have no patience for any kind of terrorism. To me, it’s not even in the same league as armed combat or blowing up a bus, a subway, a plane, or a school. Pathetic and cowardly. When we were being suppressed by Mexicans, we didn't march into Mexico to blow up their schools and buses, did we? Terrorism only breeds more hatred. They won't achieve anything with these Chechens—absolutely nothing.
I don't blame the Russians for the firefight or the deaths. I blame them because over 300 people died (!). Where were the snipers on the surrounding rooftops to stop anyone in the building from opening fire? Where were the flashbang grenades?
The units shown on TV looked like regular infantry to me, not some specialized SWAT team. This isn't the first terrorist attack on Russia, and you don't need an atomic submarine to fight terrorists; it's just a matter of training and decent gear. My conclusion is that the Russian government was 100% incompetent, and the innocent paid the price.
violent_femmes9 said:You’re overlooking one thing: the target demographic is people in their early 20s, but the women who might feel personally attacked are those my age. Most of us were just trying to survive recessions, instability, and hardship back then. I know you mean well, but adding potential infertility to the list of burdens these women have already carried is unnecessary.
I haven't forgotten. I see how much it hurts my own wife. Tell me why a woman would feel targeted if she didn't have children when circumstances simply wouldn't allow for them? That's out of anyone's hands. You can't be blamed for fate.
Amanda Stewart71 said:stormylynx14, would it be "good" for your kid—or you and your wife—if you had rushed into this at 20 just because someone promised you fertility was a breeze? Imagine having that child living in a tiny studio apartment, struggling to eat, maybe unemployed, all because you didn't plan ahead. I'd probably just end up having them ten years later anyway, hoping things finally work out.
Spot on. If you want my take, I waited too long. I could have acted sooner, but I didn't care enough back then. Pure negligence—whether it was deciding to have kids or how we handled it once we hit roadblocks. Now I regret it. My wife went through hell to get us this one child, and it looks like this is all we get. I know how selfish single children can be; I see it in myself. 😬
rustymoose54 said:Don't exaggerate. If you knew at 22 that you'd face fertility issues, you would have done this or that... or whatever. You can always imagine.
That’s what people mean by "if only I had known back then"... except if you change the past, it isn't even your life anymore.
Some women might be miserable because they spent 15 or 20 years "achieving everything," only to find seeing pregnant women frustrating now. But if it wasn't that, they'd probably just be frustrated by women succeeding in their careers instead.
whatever
Look, what are the odds of developing breast cancer? I'd say it's significantly lower than 20%. Regardless, breast exams are a constant topic on Health forums, and you likely go for screenings yourself. Fertility struggles, however unlikely they may be, simply aren't on most people's radar. It’s about awareness, not experience.
I’m calling it now: we'll see a "staged scenario" in Moscow soon enough. A raid on a school, a pile of bodies, and all the terrorists neutralized. That’s how the Russians play the game; they can't afford to show any weakness toward the Chechens.
Fine. Let’s try this approach. I’m 22 with PCOS. A dozen doctors tell me "pregnancy is the cure; you should conceive as soon as possible." Suppose that without treatment, it's harder for me to conceive than the average woman, and that difficulty only increases with age. So what? Am I supposed to believe that because I’m 22, have a career, a life, and a partner waiting in the wings—that I should just drop everything and get pregnant right now?
I haven't even finished college, I don't have a steady job, and there isn't a man in sight that I want to have a baby with. What then? Should I just rush into it and give birth in a few years simply because I might struggle later? Or follow the doctors' advice that it would somehow benefit my body?
I am prepared for the possibility of struggling to conceive one day, though I could also get lucky on the first try. If the worst happens, I could adopt. Honestly... I don't want to dwell on the worst-case scenario. That would be like refusing to leave the house just because there's a chance a car might hit me. No thanks.
tinchi, I am not addressing people like you when I ask them to consider having children. You are aware of your situation, you've weighed your options, and you've made a decision based on your current circumstances. There is nothing more you can do.
When I was 22, I wasn't seriously considering children; I pushed the idea far into a distant future to focus on reaching my potential. My career came first. Then second, then third. The heartache only started much later, realizing that having children won't be easy—if it happens at all. Had I known then, or even considered the mere 20% probability, I would have prioritized differently. This is about setting priorities when you have a choice, and deciding how to act if fertility issues arise. I'm not suggesting anyone should have children at any cost just because of future complications, nor would I suggest children as a substitute for other life goals.
Some women put their careers above everything else, only to reach the peak of their profession in 15 or 20 years and spend the rest of their lives feeling unfulfilled and miserable every time they see a pregnant woman. Some couples delay seeing a specialist when they can't conceive (my dear partner and I fall into that category). With a little awareness regarding fertility risks, that wouldn't be necessary.
I find this overall casual attitude toward the issue quite dismissive. It’s easy to be nonchalant when having children isn't your primary life goal, but through sheer coincidence, I've met plenty of people who faced devastating disillusionment and deep crises because of it. The statistical likelihood of this happening is far from negligible. What do you think the odds are of getting into a car wreck? Low, right? Yet, anyone with the money ensures their vehicle is loaded with ten airbags, ABS, traction control—every modern safety feature available. Some even bother with seatbelts. But when we're talking about something that will affect one in five (!) of us, we somehow convince ourselves we'll just "handle it." It's as if, upon getting into a car, we simply remember our neighbor Stefek surviving a head-on collision in his Ford and decide we don't need seatbelts.
restlessmarlin6 said:My mother had her first child at 33 (twenty-two years ago), then her second at 36.
Sure, sure. And it goes on forever. Everyone knows some woman who got pregnant in her late thirties, so it seems like no big deal. But I attended an infertility seminar once—specifically for people dealing with those issues. The main auditorium at a major university in Boston was packed to capacity; people were sitting on the stairs. That kind of sight changes your perspective.
restlessmarlin6 said:Don't generalize.🙂
Exactly. You can't generalize and assume that just because a neighbor at 38 could conceive, you will too. Look at the statistics instead: roughly one in six couples—some data even suggests one in five—cannot conceive naturally. At that seminar, they showed the success rates for that specific clinic; for years, it climbed toward nearly 50%. Keep in mind, that means half the couples leave without a child even after various rounds of IVF. Recently, those numbers have plateaued or even begun to dip. You hit the nail on the head: patients are getting older on average.
Hey, my apologies for the misunderstanding; I didn't catch your avatar (my left eye fails me sometimes 😉).
As for the reasoning, I realize this won't do much for women stuck in a coma due to a lack of decent partners, circumstances, or sheer bad luck. However, it might offer some solace to those making conscious choices. There are plenty of them, and we were once in that exact position.
Regarding that series of cases, let me rephrase: What is the actual ratio of successful late-stage pregnancies versus those who wanted them but couldn't have them? Keep in mind that only a tiny fraction of people will ever speak openly about that struggle.
Karen Brooks said:My aunt had a similar experience. She couldn't conceive at all until she was 39. After endless testing, doctors told her she was infertile, and she was actually planning on adoption. Then, out of nowhere, she got pregnant at 39. It was a perfectly healthy pregnancy—no bed rest required, and she delivered without any issues. Two years later, at 42, she had a second child just as easily. By 44, she had a third. Just to put it in perspective, her oldest daughter is 38 now, and my aunt was born and raised here in the USA.
Sure, but have you heard about the guy who fell from seven stories and walked away with barely a scratch? Anecdotes aren't proof. Check the actual statistics before claiming it isn't an issue...
Karen Brooks said:So, it’s all highly subjective and needs to be viewed that way. I should also mention that male infertility is rising sharply these days, so these stories about people having children very late are extremely rare outliers. If we want to talk about extremes, a woman in the USA recently gave birth in her 60s. To be fair, she used frozen eggs, so it was assisted reproduction. If we're strictly looking at biology, male fertility and sperm quality decline with age too. We could sit here talking until we pass out, but it won't change the facts. 🙄
Look, there is a wide spectrum of options between accepting a problem and committing suicide.
Karen Brooks said:Look, Bill, you’re being way too extreme. It's not like every woman over thirty should just give up on life because she hasn't found a partner to start a family with yet.
Maybe Bill was just a bit blunt about it. The reality is there are more women prioritizing their careers only to realize at 40 that money isn't everything and they actually want to be mothers. That's where the trouble starts. I'm not saying society should dictate these choices, but young women need to be realistic. My wife and I were exactly like that; kids weren't even a thought for us. When we finally considered it, we had that typical "it'll work itself out" attitude. We were wrong. Nobody warned us that one in five couples struggles with fertility.
While it's true many young people face fertility issues, it's worth noting that many conditions are treatable—provided the woman isn't past a certain age. Given what we know now, my wife and I would have gone in for fertility testing at 27 or 28. If there were any red flags, we would have started treatment immediately and escalated it quickly.