Peer Reviewed Comment

For the peer reviewed comment, I have chosen to review the post “Family Planning & Misconceptions” written by hannaheileenc on October 22, 2017. I have posted the contribution below my peer reviewed comment. The main part of this contribution can be found in the last sentence, which reads, “Generally: things that make money aren’t the best to be done, but because people are uninformed, predatory organizations may take advantage of this”. This sentence summed up the contribution in an efficient way. From reading this contribution, I learned that there are many medical practices and advertised products that are expensive but may not be as helpful as described. For instance, in paragraph two, the author states the Lambskin condoms “are essentially worthless” as they do not protect against STD’s. They are also billed as a luxury item, despite the fact that they do not do the same job as regular or latex-free condoms.

It would be informative for anyone who is a new parent or planning to become a parent to read this contribution as it debunks some myths around expensive medical treatments for infants and new mothers.

The strongest part of this contribution is paragraph three. This paragraph gives a real-life example of how a patient who was uninformed about the impacts of a medical practice may impact her and her child. The patient is described as being cautious about her caffeine intake during pregnancy as to not agitate the infant’s heart, yet she was given a C-Section without being informed that this may lead to a quick fetal heartbeat. The weakest part of this contribution is paragraph two. In this paragraph the author gives their personal opinion, which while interesting and makes the contribution more relatable, is not very helpful when looking for factual information. There were a few parts that I had to read more than once to understand, but that was only due to grammatical errors as listed below.

I found 2 spelling errors and five grammatical errors. The spelling errors are as follows. Second paragraph second sentence the word “there’s” is spelled “theres”. Fifth paragraph first sentence the word “women’s” is spelled “womens”.  The grammatical errors are as follows. First paragraph second sentence “certain parts reproductive healthcare” should read “certain parts of reproductive healthcare”. First paragraph second sentence “pre-and-postpartum” should read “pre- and post-partum”. First paragraph third sentence “if someone if planning” should read “is someone is planning”. Second paragraph fourth sentence “-luxury” should read “-a luxury”. Third paragraph third sentence says “heartbeat then that happens” should read “heartbeat when that happens”.

One part that made me want to read more on this topic is the fourth paragraph where the author states that women are more likely to be refused surgery to prevent future pregnancies such as a hysterectomy. I do believe that this is because most vasectomies for men are reversible, however, a hysterectomy is not.

On a scale of 1 to 4 with 1 being the lowest, I rate this contribution a 3 overall because it was very informative and got me thinking about the topic, however, it was riddled with spelling and grammatical errors.

Original Post:

Family Planning & Misconceptions by hannaheileenc on October 22, 2017

I know that, for sure, there’s misconceptions within the realm of family planning. Even if we disregard the fact that certain parts reproductive healthcare is stigmatized by one of the major US parties, as well as many religious institutions, even in medical spaces there’s rapid debate about what to do pre-and-postpartum when it comes to reproductive consensus. When should a mother go back on birth control after having a child if someone if planning on waiting to have another? What birth control is right for someone who doesn’t plan on having children at any point? Are there luxury products that may not be the best for reproductive health? Should a person be able to elect to have a C-Section?

Lambskin condoms are one thing, for example, that are essentially worthless (in my humble opinion). Billed as a luxury product, for monogamous couples and as birth control. Great – good to know theres something on the market for that. But it still is just that – luxury. Even for those who have latex allergies, non-latex condoms are an option. And with many monogamous couples, they just aren’t cost effective – I found them online, priced at about 3 USD per condom. Not to mention they’re made of an intestinal membrane, which is pretty disgusting.

And here’s another “boo” to a medical industry so driven by high cost: episiotomy is still high, and was even higher in the near past. C-Sections that may not be deemed necessary are still performed. I know I was an induced labor, and didn’t know that there’s a higher risk of quick fetal heartbeat then that happens – and my Mom, someone who refused to eat chocolate during her pregnancy due to worries that it’d mess with caffeine levels, may not have chosen to be induced if she was informed on that.

Much of reproductive care, as well, is handled by those who may exhibit bias on certain regards – generally, doctors will not perform vasectomies or tubal litigation on those who are young and have not had children, even if they are sure they wouldn’t want to any time in their future. This is typically more common for women, to be refused a procedure.

Aside from that: the myth that womens eggs “begin to die” in their 30’s, leading to fertility clinic profits from performing women in their 20’s.

Generally: things that make money aren’t the best to be done, but because people are uninformed, predatory organizations may take advantage of this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s