Talk:Dilation and curettage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. To participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated start-Class on the assessment scale.

How long should a person wait until having sexual intercourse, after a dilationa and curettage is performed

Our doctor said wait 3 weeks before having intercourse and wait 3 months before trying to have another baby --Chadrack 17:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Should the first external link below be removed? It has nothing to do with D&C, but rather abortion, which is rarely in the form of D&C. It's also a site promoting illegal, unsafe DIY abortions.--Dub8lad1 20:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I visited it a while ago and I remember it as a detailed explanation of how D&C's are performed. I don't think the site promotes illegal, unsafe DIY abortions. If anything, reading about the procedure has reminded me that even a relatively safe and simple surgical procedure requires special skills and tools. I'd be less likely to want to perform a D&C now that I was before, and that's despite being entirely unlikely in the first place. So, in short, no, I don't think the l ink should be removed. Al 21:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

But it's called an "abortion manual for the women of South Dakota", and tells laypeople how to perform abortions in their own homes. Sounds like a DIY abortion to me, which surely can't be safe? Or legal. But no matter, my point was more that it was off-topic. It doesn't talk exclusively about D&Cs (which are rarely used for abortions and much more for medical reasons anyway), so maybe it should be moved to the abortion article (which is admittedly already groaning under the strain of text, even before you get the discussion page!) or to the backalley abortion article?--Dub8lad1 23:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It gives full directions to how a D&C is performed. That's a lot of relevant information. It belongs here. Al 23:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. The first link needs to be removed because it is dangerous to women. I'm also not sure that the statistics on the prevalence of D&C abortions are correct. The surgery complication at the end of the article also seems biased because it does not mention how extremely rare a complication like that is. An abortion is the safest medical procedure on the planet.

Is it just me, or does this article seem to be focused on abortion. AS far as I know, a D&C is not often, if at all used for removal of a live fetus at least not in this day and age. This proceedure is used primarily for removal of products of conception from a miscarriage, and is a life saving medical proceedure. I think this article may not fairly represent the primary use of this proceedure, and may cause undue grief for women having to go through this proceedure if the article focuses on removal of a living fetus. rmosler 22:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kuro5hin link removal

Hi all,

I'd like to hear opinions about the removal of this link.

Especially from who has removed it and from who objects its removal.

Thank you and happy editing,

Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI - 21:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The text at that link is "Sorry. I can't seem to find that story." Joie de Vivre 21:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've done a formatting error, it should be fixed now.

I've read here that User:Ti dave claims that the article is from Army's Field Manual. Can he/she provide sources for this claim? Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI - 21:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The PD source material that I abridged (US Army Special Forces Medical Handbook, ST 31-91B, 1 March 1982) can be found, in electronic format, on page 17 of the PDF file found at this location http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/milmed/sfhandbook-pt2.pdf

I used a dead-tree format when I wrote the piece. Ti dave 23:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I would like to mention that the link in question had been in place for nearly 3 years, without complaint, before the edit in question. Ti dave 02:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember to focus on contents, rather than how ;-) Happy editing, Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI - 22:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Does the other editor confirm that the text written here is much the same of what is written here? Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI - 00:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it important to compare the two? Joie de Vivre 17:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that Snowolf is trying to ascertain if I pulled the source material from my nether regions, or if it is based upon legitimate medical references. However, I'll wait for his response. As an aside, I'm not sure that answering a question with yet another question is helpful in this sort of situation.Ti dave 06:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice Joie de Vivre's question. Ti dave guessed right, I was trying to determinate if kuro5hin's article was medically all right or not. I've also suggest that we can link to the manual, instead. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 14:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I object to including this information at all. Anyone who wants to search the web for it can do so. However, in the wrong hands, this information could be extremely dangerous. We don't have do-it-yourself surgery links at any of the other articles regarding surgical procedures that I checked, we shouldn't link such instructions here either. Joie de Vivre 19:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe that you have yet to object to the WHO link, which leads directly to DIY information for the procedure! How long has that link been present, with nary a peep from you?

I suspect that your problem isn't with the information, your problem is with me, and that makes your removal of the Kuro5hin link based upon your bias and not upon facts. Ti dave 00:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The WHO link is included as a reference to support the statement that "dilatation and curettage should be used only if manual vacuum aspiration is not available", presumably because D&C is more invasive and more dangerous. If I could find a comparable source that made that statement without including instructions on how to perform the procedure, I would support using that instead.

I don't think it's in the interest of public safety to include a link that provides do-it-yourself instructions for how to perform dilation and curettage. If someone wishes to learn how to perform the D&C procedure, they are free to search for it online. I have not found any other Wikipedia article that includes a link to instructions on how to perform a risky surgical procedure.

I disagree with the suggestion that I am somehow biased against you. I had never heard of you until you showed up on my talk page with an immediate request that I email you directly with an explanation of my edit. I didn't find that suggestion to be entirely savory, and, frankly, I would prefer to limit such interactions, not encourage more. Joie de Vivre 15:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You must be joking! "In the interest of public safety"? Take a look at the entries on nitroglycerin and Dynamite. Explicit directions on how to prepare the former, then the latter from the nitroglycerin. Of course, it's not your pet topic, so the information persists.

I'm sure I can spot several other examples of potentially hazardous activities on WP, but the point remains- I am galled by your efforts to make this topic safe for 8-year old children.

Your position is antithetical to the cause of providing information to the reader and it smacks of censorship. Ti dave 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Procedure names and use for miscarriage vs. abortion

There is some discussion at Talk:Dilation and evacuation#A bit of a problem about procedure names, and what they are used for (abortion vs. miscarriage) that might end up being relevant to this article. Lyrl ^Talk _C 17:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)