nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

Dublin_Gunner

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. 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

Wow. You don't know what you're talking about.

1. You associate having sex with smoking?? Seriously? Would you like to throw drug abuse in there also?

2. The pill provides NO form of protection against STI's. None. So there is no case of it working or not re: STI's. Its for birth control and menstrual and hormonal regulation.

Sure there are side effects. But whats the worse side effect - a potential blood clot, or a pregnant 13 year old? (I'd like to add that pretty much EVERY OTC drug you buy has potentially worse side effects - and I'm yet to know a woman who has suffered from blood clots or depression as a result of taking the contraceptive pill, so I'd imagine the risk is fairly low considering the amount of females that currently take it).

The lesser of two evils must be taken into account here, and they're giving these teenagers the opportunity to be at least a bit responsible regarding an act they're going to participate in anyway.

After all, I can't imagine seeing teenage virgins signing up for it - it will be the already sexually active ones.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

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

Nope, you have shown naievity is other ways.

I never said that was how you showed your naievity!

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

Irrelevant...

So why point to that fact that underage drinking is illegal?

MrStuffins wrote: »

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.

No I'm not I made that point quite clear twice now.

prinz

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Wow. You don't know what you're talking about.
1. You associate having sex with smoking?? Seriously? Would you like to throw drug abuse in there also?

LOL the irony. Smoking affects the pill, and the two combined can have health implications for the person involved. Particularly heart disease and problems.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

So why point to that fact that underage drinking is illegal?

You brought up underage drinking

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 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?

Revolutionary ideas like your "pro-active parenting" and "education" just might work though. You should pitch them to the people in charge of this scheme :rolleyes:

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

LOL the irony. Smoking affects the pill, and the two combined can have health implications for the person involved.

Yes, but taking the pill does not mean the subject is also smoking, like the person he was quoting said :rolleyes:

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

Yes, but taking the pill does not mean the subject is also smoking, like the person he was quoting said :rolleyes:

I think the poster was actually wondering whether a smoking 13 year old who also goes on the pill is going to have the wherewithall to know that the two don't mix very well.

[Deleted User]

crayolastereo wrote: »

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?

The article says it's a month's supply if they're already getting the MAP, not signing them up in general. And after that they have to go to the doctor, I don't know how that will work.

I think this is ok as a stopgap measure but ideally more sex education should be given in general, including pointing out that it's ok to not have it so young. ;s And by education I don't mean "condoms don't work, don't do this til you're married, the end"

Dublin_Gunner

prinz wrote: »

LOL the irony. Smoking affects the pill, and the two combined can have health implications for the person involved.

So your point is what exactly?

This is about administering birth control to teenagers, not whether smoking effects it or not.

Oh, and a lot of my female friends smoke, most are on the pill, and none have gotten pregnant yet while on it. So once again, while there maybe a tiny chance of smoking damaging the effectiveness of the pill (and some versions of the Pill more than others), the risk is a lot less than having a pregnant teenager ruin their lives by getting pregnant - which is the whole point of the scheme.

A smoking teenage girl having unprotected sex may get pregnant quite easily, a smoking teenage girl on the pill has at least a 98% chance of NOT getting pregnant. But lets not miss the point here.

Once again you're moving the goalposts away from the crux of the issue. Look at the bigger picture and stop nit-picking just because YOU don;t agree with it.

Sure, in a perfect world, all teenagers would either be suitably educated regarding sex to be careful, or would be not having sex yet anyway.

Unfortunately the reality is quite different and nobody's religious beliefs or ideologies are going to change that.

Administering the Pill IS targeting the problem head on, in a contemporary, forward thinking way. Education can only do so much.

We can at least rest assured that if a teenager actively seeks to go on the pill for birth control that they will be responsible in taking it. The irresponsible ones are the ones who won't seek it in the first place - and no amount of education will help them protect themselves.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

I think the poster was actually wondering whether a smoking 13 year old who also goes on the pill is going to have the wherewithall to know that the two don't mix very well.

Try thinking less and reading more. She said "I'd say they're smoking as well".

Complete speculation which does nothing to show that her argument is relevant to the discussion.