Isle of Wight launches Teen Pill Scheme

MrStuffins

Source

A controversial scheme allowing girls as young as 13 to get the contraceptive pill without parental consent has been launched.


The pilot scheme on the Isle of Wight will allow girls who ask for the morning after pill to also get a month's supply of the contraceptive pill.

After that, the girls must see a doctor or a specialist nurse to get further supplies.

The Isle of Wight Primary Care Trust says the scheme - which involves a third of the island's chemists - will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
Critics say the Trust is being "irresponsible".

Island MP, Tory Andrew Turner said: "We expect parents to take responsibility for their children
"They are undermined if the NHS hands out contraceptives to girls with no medical examination or consideration of their circumstances.



"Underage sex is illegal and dangerous."
Mr Turner is planning to take the matter up with Health Secretary Andrew Lansley.

Local parish priest Father Anthony Glaysher described the scheme as "depraved", adding it would encourage promiscuity.
However, one parent - the father of two daughters - welcomed the news.
"In an ideal world teenage girls would always seek the help and advice of their parents and would not have sex, but we live in a less than ideal world," he told the Isle of Wight County Press.
Jennifer Smith, from the Isle of Wight NHS Primary Care Trust, said: "They are already sexually active, we haven't encouraged them to be sexually active.
"I would suggest that what we're doing is being entirely responsible by providing [contraception to] these most vulnerable women, for whom, for the most part, pregnancy is not a good outcome."

So what do you think? Are they being responsible? Or are they being "depraved" as the local Parish Priest described the scheme?

biko

I'm all for it. Young girls should have the option not to get pregnant and god knows young boys are too stupid to protect themselves.

flyton5

Who listens to anything priests say anymore? They really need to stop sticking their oar in where it doesn't belong.

Biggins

flyton5 wrote: »

Who listens to anything priests say anymore? They really need to stop sticking their oar in where it doesn't belong.

If it was only that they were sticking in!

Gunsfortoys

I welcome it.

They are already having sex at that age these days with media influence stronger than ever. If they end up having a child because of it, it could ruin their lives. At least this will benefit their society as there will be less need for single mother welfare in the future.

prinz

Does seem a bit odd when you think about it, if they are underage etc. Whether they are already active seems besides the point.

As long as they are properly informed and educated about all the possible side effects.

kraggy

I agree with it, and after time, the single parent's allowance should be reduced over time/finished.

Pill + condom = no excuses.

If the single parent's allowance wasn't so high here, you wouldn't have as many younger people getting pregnant.

I know I'll be hammered for saying the above but I don't care.

prinz

flyton5 wrote: »

They really need to stop sticking their oar in where it doesn't belong.

Perhaps they should stop being asked for their 'oar' in the first place.

Hail 2 Da Thief

Sounds like they're living in the real world unlike Father Anthony Glaysher!:rolleyes:

MrStuffins

MP Andrew Turner reckons that parents should take responsibility for their children.

Is he really so nieve to think that parents can stop their kids having sex?

It just shows we're not the only country with stupid public representatives!

flyton5

prinz wrote: »

Does seem a bit odd when you think about it, if they are underage etc. Whether they are already active seems besides the point.

As long as they are properly informed and educated about all the possible side effects.

Emmm how is it besides the point? If they're active and not on the pill and end up pregnant who does that benefit? The girl? The baby? The taxpayer? Enlighten us please.

prinz

flyton5 wrote: »

Emmm how is it besides the point? If they're active and not on the pill and end up pregnant who does that benefit? The girl? The baby? The taxpayer? Enlighten us please.

It makes about as much sense as the gardaí distributing longer fuse fireworks at Hallowe'en, it's illegal to be using them but sure it might stop some blowing their fingers off...

Scratch what I said earlier, for girls as young as 13 it should only be with parental consent.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

Does seem a bit odd when you think about it, if they are underage etc. Whether they are already active seems besides the point.

As long as they are properly informed and educated about all the possible side effects.

yeah, but being underage has never stopped 2 underagers from having sex with each other.

The sooner people (not you by the way, i'm not having a dig) realise this the better. There's too much of this "Well kids shouldn't be having sex in the first place" and "Well this would encourage kids to have sex" attitude about.

The parents who can realise their kids are comin to sexual maturity and sit down and talk like adults about it are the ones who don't end up with a 14 year old pregnant daughter (generally)

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

The parents who can realise their kids are comin to sexual maturity and sit down and talk like adults about it are the ones who don't end up with a 14 year old pregnant daughter (generally)

I agree, which would make parental consent a better requirement. Rather than a 13 year going getting the pill etc on her own. If parental consent was a requirement it may force more parents to have those talks. We don't allow 13 year olds to buy booze for themselves but we expect them to have the cop on and maturity to (a) decide on take the pill and (b) proper usage.

IvySlayer

The priest should STFU. What would a virgin know about sex?

It's a good scheme.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

It makes about as much sense as the gardaí distributing longer fuse fireworks at Hallowe'en, it's illegal to be using them but sure it might stop some blowing their fingers off...

Nope. In this situation, the Gardai are helping kids prolong the bang.

In the other situation, they are realising that the "bang" is gonna happen whether you like it or not, and they are trying to prevent the consequences!

Are you so blind as to think that underage sex won't happen anyway?

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

Are you so blind as to think that underage sex won't happen anyway?

No, but you are missing the point of what I'm actually saying.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

I agree, which would make parental consent a better requirement. Rather than a 13 year going getting the pill etc on her own. If parental consent was a requirement it may force more parents to have those talks.

Dude, kids don't go to their parents to ask permission to have sex, get real!

We don't allow 13 year olds to buy booze for themselves but we expect them to have the cop on and maturity to (a) decide on take the pill and (b) proper usage.

Wow, you really are this naive!

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

No, but you are missing the point of what I'm actually saying.

I get what you're saying.

But don't you know that not all parents are mad about the idea of their children having sex?

Don't you realise that just because their parents say "No you're too young" this won't stop them?

In this situation, they can't get their parents' consent, but they are going to have sex anyway!

This is when teenage pregnancy occurs.

Do you really think they shouldn't have access because their parents say no? They're going to have sex anyway!

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

Dude, kids don't go to their parents to ask permission to have sex, get real!

So what?

MrStuffins wrote: »

Wow, you really are this naive!

I'm not the one advocating young teens be given total control over things such as the pill, for a vareity of reasons. I'm not the naive one.

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

Do you really think they shouldn't have access because their parents say no? They're going to have sex anyway!

So your solution is to take the parents out of the equation altogether and allow kids take decisions on drugs which have possible life threatening side effects and which even mature adults often seem to have issues with self-administering properly?

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

So your solution is to take the parents out of the equation altogether and allow kids take decisions on drugs which have possible life threatening side effects and which even mature adults often seem to have issues with self-administering properly?

You don't think pregnancy is a big enough side-effect?

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

You don't think pregnancy is a big enough side-effect?

Bigger than death? Tbh when the choice is being given to a horny teenager are they going to put proper thought and consideration into it?

gurramok

This event really shows how religion should be removed from people's lives.
"Local parish priest Father Anthony Glaysher described the scheme as "depraved""

It has nothing to do with him with what people want to do with their lives.:mad: He should just continue to spread the love, that is love each other as human beings and not the sexual type

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

Bigger than death? Tbh when the choice is being given to a horny teenager are they going to put proper thought and consideration into it?

Nowhere in the article does it say they have to take the pill without seeing a doctor first.

Everything you buy in the chemist can have potential side-effects. Even something like Deep Heat can have side effects, should we ban that too? Saying "death" is being slightly over-dramatic don't you think? I could easily say Child-Birth causes death, but i'm not going to be silly!

In fact, studies have shown that the contraceptive pill can reduce a woman's cancer risk and actually prolongs life.

But i digress.......... kids are gonna have sex. They will get pregnant. Having the pill available to them will stop them getting pregnant.

That's a good thing.

MrStuffins

gurramok wrote: »

This event really shows how religion should be removed from people's lives.
"Local parish priest Father Anthony Glaysher described the scheme as "depraved""

It has nothing to do with him with what people want to do with their lives.:mad: He should just continue to spread the love, that is love each other as human beings and not the sexual type

The fact that news agencies continually go to priests for their moral judgement is amazing to me!

conorhal

The priest is right. The little slags should learn to dress modestly, cross their knees, giggle in a coquettish manner at the boys and insist, that if he absolutely must sate his animal desire, he can only use the tradesman's entrance....

MrStuffins

conorhal wrote: »

The priest is right. The little slags should learn to dress modestly, cross their knees, giggle in a coquettish manner at the boys and insist, that if he absolutely must sate his animal desire, he can only use the tradesman's entrance....

Are you saying that not having the pill available will increase usage of the tradesmans' entrance?.....................

.......... i am now officially against this scheme!

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

Nowhere in the article does it say they have to take the pill without seeing a doctor first..

..and as with most serious decisions involving minors parental consent should be required not just the doctor and the minor.

As for saying death, not I don't think it at all over dramatic when one of my wife's schoolfriends died because of DVT, which was blamed on the Pill. While it might present statistically a small chance there are far too many people who advocate throwing it around like a Cadbury's button.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

..and as with most serious decisions involving minors parental consent should be required not just the doctor and the minor.

As for saying death, not I don't think it at all over dramatic when one of my wife's schoolfriends died because of DVT, which was blamed on the Pill. While it might present statistically a small chance there are far too many people who advocate throwing it around like a Cadbury's button.

My friend's aunt died while giving birth. So pregnancy might be a great option either. Saying "death" IS a little over dramatic considering the statistical liklihood! I don't see people walking around saying "CHILD BIRTH KILLS"

Although i think it's safe it say it's a much more dangerous option.

Again, everything has side effects!

Chuchoter

Wow. This is really, really irresponsible

The pill is not 'just' a contraceptive, its a fairly heavy dose of hormones and its not to be taken lightly. I don't expect a 13 year old to know their family history with regards to blood clotting disorders or whether they'll be responsible enough to stop smoking (if they're having sex at 13 I'd say they're smoking as well). I'm all up for proper sex education, but not without parental involvement. There are also many, many misconceptions about the pill: in regards to STDs, when it works and when it does not work. I'm 17, I'm on it for medical reasons and I find it complicated enough even just remembering to take it, I cannot imagine handling it by myself at 13

Another thing, I think it would be a lot more sensible to just bite the bullet and bring in PROPER SEX ED IN SCHOOLS! Not just the mechanics, but all the STDs, the childbirth videos, the effects of having a child young, the emotions around sex, and all of this in 5th class. Sorry if this is ruining childhood, but its a hell of a lot better than handing out serious medication to kids.

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

Again, everything has side effects!

..and again like everything that has serious side effects a parent/guardian should be involved in the decision.

prinz

crayolastereo wrote: »

Wow. This is really, really irresponsible
The pill is not 'just' a contraceptive, its a fairly heavy dose of hormones and its not to be taken lightly.

Finally, some common sense.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

..and again like everything that has serious side effects a parent/guardian should be involved in the decision.

And again, just because they "should" it doesn't mean that parents are involved.

How many times have you heard of a parent's involvement of their 14 year old daughter getting pregnant by having underage sex? Not many, because 14 year olds don't go to their parents for permission!

Look, you have to realise that kids are going to have sex whether their parents like it or not. Weighing up the liklihood of their getting pregnant versus the statistical liklihood that they might eventually get DVT, it's a no brainer what the decision should be. There's npthing stopping them from going to the doctor for advice.

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

And again, just because they "should" it doesn't mean that parents are involved..

Which is precisely why IMO the parents should be contacted by the authorities if needs be before any decision is taken to hand out the pill to young teens.

The line of argument that 'it's going to happen anyway' is nonsense. Underage drinking is going to happen anyway, should we serve 13 year olds in pubs? Underage smoking..? Perhaps the GP's should be able to prescribe sleeping pills etc to 13 year olds? Or anti-depressants?

K-9

A priest calling a contraceptive pill scheme depraved!

Wonder where he ranks child sex abuse cases in the scheme of things?

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

Which is precisely why IMO the parents should be contacted by the authorities if needs be before any decision is taken to hand out the pill to young teens.

The authorities?

I honestly think that it's people like you (and i don't mean that in a condescending way, i know we just have a difference of opinion) who end up with pregnant teenage daughters.

Answer me this, how else are you going to, realistically, stop teenagers from getting pregnant?

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

The line of argument that 'it's going to happen anyway' is nonsense. Underage drinking is going to happen anyway, should we serve 13 year olds in pubs? Underage smoking..? Perhaps the GP's should be able to prescribe sleeping pills etc to 13 year olds? Or anti-depressants?

Your analogies continue to be nonsense!

Serving a kid drink is not the same as giving them contraception. Don't be foolish!

Nobody is serving our kids sex!

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

The authorities?

You know, the clinics who are going to be giving it out?

MrStuffins wrote: »

I honestly think that it's people like you (and i don't mean that in a condescending way, i know we just have a difference of opinion) who end up with pregnant teenage daughters.

I doubt that somehow but if that's what you need to say to try to reaffirm your own position go for it.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

You know, the clinics who are going to be giving it out?



I doubt that somehow but if that's what you need to say to try to reaffirm your own position go for it.

You quoted my post but never answered my question.

Also, your suggestion that my position needs reaffirming tells me that you think i am somehow on the defensive. Not a hope!

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

Serving a kid drink is not the same as giving them contraception. Don't be foolish!!

In both cases it's providing them with a drug with potential side effects, particularly in someone so young.

Ouchette

MrStuffins wrote: »

The fact that news agencies continually go to priests for their moral judgement is amazing to me!

I'm pretty sure the UK media only go to the priests so everyone can have a good laugh at their strange and backward views. I'm fine with that.

Dublin_Gunner

biko wrote: »

I'm all for it. Young girls should have the option not to get pregnant and god knows young boys are too stupid to protect themselves.

Young boys should have more of an option not to get a young girls pregnant, cause god knows young girls are too stupid not to have sex without a condom.

Its all too easy to blame the boys. Takes 2 to tango.

Its a good scheme IMO. The kids are going to be at it anyway, so they may as well have the option to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancy.

Of course you could bring up the whole STI debate here, but that is not the intent of the scheme.

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

You quoted my post but never answered my question

Proper education and proactive parenting rather than resignation to the perceived 'inevitable' and papering over the subsequent cracks.

Dublin_Gunner

prinz wrote: »

Proper education and proactive parenting rather than resignation to the perceived 'inevitable' and papering over the subsequent cracks.

Some ideals are fantastical. While you may get some to a decently educated level regarding safe sex, there will always be a lot who are not careful, and will be having sex anyway.

Better to at least have the option of protecting themselves.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

In both cases it's providing them with a drug with potential side effects, particularly in someone so young.

Your analogy made no sense.

Underage drinking is illegal. You asked should we serve them drink?

Nobody ever suggested we should serve them sex!

MrStuffins

MrStuffins wrote: »

Answer me this, how else are you going to, realistically, stop teenagers from getting pregnant?

prinz wrote: »

Proper education and proactive parenting rather than resignation to the perceived 'inevitable' and papering over the subsequent cracks.

This post right here shows your complete naivety!

Chuchoter

So no-ones worried about blood clots, smoking, depression, the many, many other side effects? No-one?

I mean I was literally at the doctor today making sure my blood pressure was ok. You have to go back to the doctor every 6 months. You trust a 13 year old to do that?

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

Underage drinking is illegal.

When was the age of consent lowered in the UK?

MrStuffins wrote: »

You asked should we serve them drink? Nobody ever suggested we should serve them sex!

You are missing the central point, both alcohol and the pill are drugs which could be seriously damaging to a young person, both of which are usually used in order to engage in a certain 'social' life. It's not about serving sex, it's about acknowledging and facilitating it rather than combatting it to begin with.

prinz

crayolastereo wrote: »

So no-ones worried about blood clots, smoking, depression, the many, many other side effects? No-one?

Apparently if you do, it's a sign of your naievity.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

When was the age of consent lowered in the UK?

Irrelevant

You are missing the central point, both alcohol and the pill are drugs which could be seriously damaging to a young person, both of which are usually used in order to engage in a certain 'social' life. It's not about serving sex, it's about acknowledging and facilitating it rather than combatting it to begin with.

No i am not missing the point, this was not your point at all. You made an analogy, it made no sense. Now you are shifting the goalposts.