Slate’s “Dear Prudence” gets the best letters. This week, “Wishing I’d Got to Him First” wrote in, asking for advice about reversing her husband’s vasectomy. You see, her husband was married before, and his ex-wife “required” him to get his tubes cut because she did not want children. Then, she left him for another man. Now, “Wishing” is married to a man who can’t give her kids, and she wants them — bad.
“We’ve looked into having my husband’s vasectomy reversed, but the cost is prohibitive—around $15,000—and the procedure is not covered by health insurance. Would it be appropriate to approach Leanne or pursue her in civil court to recoup the cost of the procedure?”
Prudence says if the ex had “done the procedure herself, a la Lorena Bobbitt,” they might have a case, but because “Wishing”‘s husband got the vasectomy willingly, they can’t expect a judge to force his ex to pay up for the reversal.
I feel for “Wishing.” It sounds like she has a doormat for a husband. Did he want kids with his ex, but he was willing to give that up because she said so? Or did he not want kids, but now that his new wife does, he’s game? It’s a costly change of heart, but one he should shoulder himself. What do you guys think? [Slate]