Sir, - H. E. Counihan's letter (April 5th) prompted some musings on the subject of vasectomy and related issues. While acknowledging correctly that the procedure is entirely lawful in this he likens it to cosmetic surgery in the context of whether the taxpayer should be asked to fund it.
It could be argued strongly that a man who chooses to limit his fertility is saving the same tax payer huge amounts of money, particularly when he does not have a sufficient income to support children without state help. Indeed, considering the issue at stake, i.e. to father or not to father, it is more than frivolous to liken it to the altering of one's own facial or bodily appearance. One wouldn't need to be a financial wizard to see that the cost of vasectomy to the state would be miniscule compared to 18 years plus of the financial costs of rearing a child. Persons who are limiting their families on financial grounds are also more likely to need financial assistance in our current expensive two tiered medical system!
Finally, there is the matter of choice. As we approach the end of the century, having witnessed the many changes in the last decade even, are we still about the business of being told whether or not to be fertile by people who choose not to be parents? - Yours, etc.,
Ashfield Park,
Dublin 6.