News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


MP says contraceptive jabs will increase sexual disease


A HAMPSHIRE MP has attacked plans to curb teenage pregnancy by giving contraceptive jabs to girls as young as 13.

Romsey and Southampton North MP Sandra Gidley said the plans, recommended by ministers to city health chiefs, is only aimed at meeting targets and would lead to a rise in sexually transmitted infections.

Under the proposed scheme, teenagers would not have to tell their parents before having the injection at school-based clinics.

The Liberal Democrat’s shadow public health minister said it would turn Southampton into the STI capital of the south.

“A contraceptive injection on its own may bring down the rates of teenage pregnancy, but will only lead to more teenagers contracting sexually-transmitted infections," she said.

"More needs to be done to tackle the underlying problem of teenagers having unprotected sex.

“We will only begin to solve this crisis by making appropriate personal, social and health education compulsory in schools.

“I hope the government will see the error in its thinking and will not allow Southampton to slide from being the teenage pregnancy capital of the south into the teenage STI capital of the south."

Southampton is one of 21 cities in the UK identified as a teenage pregnancy hotspot and the Government has issued letters to health chiefs to take “urgent action” to reduce the rate.

Officials say injections or long- lasting implants would make it easier for girls to control their fertility.

Southampton’s teenage pregnancy boss Charlotte Bernard said the jabs are not currently available in the city’s schools and refused to say whether it was something they would bring in until a six-month review into sexual services was completed later this month.

Comments(5)

10 Minute Man says...
6:58am Mon 5 Jan 09

We have the final responsiblity for looking after our children (including their health), not the State. Anyone who medicates my child without my permission will find themselve on a whistle-stop tour of the courts.

Vonnie says...
7:29am Mon 5 Jan 09

This is real "big brother, nannie state" stuff. As commented above, the welfare of children until they reach the age of majority is the responsibilty of the parents.
A bit like the issue of fluoridisation of drinking water and children's teeth.
On a slightly different tack, may I say that it takes two to create a pregnancy, so how come the young male of our species doesn't get a mention in any of these reports, recommendations, and arguments?
Why shouldn't boys/young men be encouraged, in the words of the anonymous official, "to control their fertility" instead of just girls.
I think there is a strong case for going back half a century and reviving Paternity Affiliation Orders which were once insisted upon by what was then the equivalent of Social Services before it paid out any money.

Georgem says...
11:48am Mon 5 Jan 09

10 Minute Man wrote:
We have the final responsiblity for looking after our children (including their health), not the State. Anyone who medicates my child without my permission will find themselve on a whistle-stop tour of the courts.
I daresay that, in the case of your daughter, who appears to have real, actual parents, who actually care about her welfare, medication of this nature would not be necessary in the first place. Many 13 year old girls aren't so fortunate, and to pretend they don't need this protection is a bit short-sighted

10 Minute Man says...
1:13pm Mon 5 Jan 09

Georgem wrote:
10 Minute Man wrote:
We have the final responsiblity for looking after our children (including their health), not the State. Anyone who medicates my child without my permission will find themselve on a whistle-stop tour of the courts.
I daresay that, in the case of your daughter, who appears to have real, actual parents, who actually care about her welfare, medication of this nature would not be necessary in the first place. Many 13 year old girls aren't so fortunate, and to pretend they don't need this protection is a bit short-sighted
Fair enough, and ensuring they won't "fall pregnant" (fall? ffs...) will save us taxpayers a lot of money in the long run, and should slow down the breeding of the feckless. Fewer teenage mothers=fewer benefits, council houses, other services which we have to fund.

Plus some of them might actually go on to make something of their lives.

Rob444 says...
6:08pm Mon 5 Jan 09

Anything that reduces population growth must be welcome.

The planet is creaking at the seams, and no-one seems too bothered about it.


Most popular






Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses