Health secretary backs controversial implants for school girls (From Daily Echo)

What about telling her that it is wrong and aginst the law to engage in this before she is 16? Why isn't there more done to promote abstinence? Why have a law for sexual activity being illegal until 16. This country is arse about face and upside down.

Gillick competence, anyone?

redfield obviously knows far more than the legal system and hasn't been reading the columns Littlewigeon ;) . Anyone who thinks that their 'teen' is immune just because they've had a little chat is fooling themselves! I will continue to talk to my daughter but I know how headstrong I was as a teenager in spite of having a very proactive mother.

My comment for this particular snippet is "lansley says it's ok, ah well that instils us with confidence then"!! one of the most challenged and hated politicians in the country at the moment lol

If this idiot had brains, we would be very dangerous. If this is the standard of the Government Ministers, we have every reason to be worried about our future.

When Victoria Gillick sought a declaration that prescribed contraception was illegal because the doctor would commit an offence of encouraging sex with a minor, and that it would be treatment without consent vested in the parent,
the matter was brought before the House of Lords, it was focussed on the issue of consent rather than a notion of 'parental rights'. In fact, the court held that 'parental rights' did not exist, other than to safeguard the best intentions of a minor. The majority held that in some circumstances a minor could consent to treatment, and that in these circumstances a parent had no power to veto treatment.
Lord Scarman ruled , as a matter of law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment if and when the child achieves sufficeient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed.
So there it stands , and so Andrew Lansley defends the health authorities without any concern that the law can knock him off his perch.
So will the angry mother get her apology, I don't think so.

Sovietobserver wrote:
When Victoria Gillick sought a declaration that prescribed contraception was illegal because the doctor would commit an offence of encouraging sex with a minor, and that it would be treatment without consent vested in the parent,
the matter was brought before the House of Lords, it was focussed on the issue of consent rather than a notion of 'parental rights'. In fact, the court held that 'parental rights' did not exist, other than to safeguard the best intentions of a minor. The majority held that in some circumstances a minor could consent to treatment, and that in these circumstances a parent had no power to veto treatment.
Lord Scarman ruled , as a matter of law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment if and when the child achieves sufficeient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed.
So there it stands , and so Andrew Lansley defends the health authorities without any concern that the law can knock him off his perch.
So will the angry mother get her apology, I don't think so.

absolutely right and factual ..... however, where I believe they may fall down is that there are no clinical trials of the implant on Under 18s.....

although I think that Mr Lansley will be knocked off his perch quite soon (not about this but his proposed NHS changes!).

Now three Tory lead coalition cabinet members want the NHS Bill scrapped.
.
What a shambles ...... another U-Turn ?
.

I wonder if Lansley would defend this action if it involved his 13 yr old daughter without his consent ?

So this IS government policy then. I think this is one of the most shocking things I have ever heard and shame on anyone who defends it.

chrisdemeanour wrote:
So this IS government policy then. I think this is one of the most shocking things I have ever heard and shame on anyone who defends it.

It was introduced by the Labour government. You personally may not have heard of it but it is law.
>
A thought - parents don't give consent for their children to have sex!!
>
IMHO the increase in teenage pregnancies co-insides with the increase in sex education.

Disgraceful. So what happens if a 13 year old girl tells the 13 year old boy that she has an implant when, in reality, she hasn't? If you are under 16 sex is illegal (even though some may be doing it). If one of the couple is over 16 then it becomes paedophilia.
Tell young teenagers the law, but don't encourage them to have sex that young by offering the pill, condoms, implants etc.
As the editor of the Daily Echo rightly said on BBC Solent this morning, this country has lost its moral backbone.

Redfield wrote:
What about telling her that it is wrong and aginst the law to engage in this before she is 16? Why isn't there more done to promote abstinence? Why have a law for sexual activity being illegal until 16. This country is arse about face and upside down.

.. "Why have a law for sexual activity being illegal until 16" - Indeed.

It's always gone on, and always will. Legislation against our evolved instincts and drives is always going to fail and be ignored. Cnut had a better chance of controlling the tides than prudes have of enforcing such nonsense.

Far better that we take fmg2’s approach, but meanwhile ensure that those who do engage in sexual activity before they are 16 are at least spared pregnancy so early in their lives.

eurogordi wrote:
Disgraceful. So what happens if a 13 year old girl tells the 13 year old boy that she has an implant when, in reality, she hasn't? If you are under 16 sex is illegal (even though some may be doing it). If one of the couple is over 16 then it becomes paedophilia.
Tell young teenagers the law, but don't encourage them to have sex that young by offering the pill, condoms, implants etc.
As the editor of the Daily Echo rightly said on BBC Solent this morning, this country has lost its moral backbone.

"As the editor of the Daily Echo rightly said on BBC Solent this morning, this country has lost its moral backbone."

I agree. And it has lost integrity, values, respect and discipline.

You only had to read the comments on the articles about the Sex Club in the New Forest to confirm it..........

freefinker wrote:

Redfield wrote:
What about telling her that it is wrong and aginst the law to engage in this before she is 16? Why isn't there more done to promote abstinence? Why have a law for sexual activity being illegal until 16. This country is arse about face and upside down.

.. "Why have a law for sexual activity being illegal until 16" - Indeed.

It's always gone on, and always will. Legislation against our evolved instincts and drives is always going to fail and be ignored. Cnut had a better chance of controlling the tides than prudes have of enforcing such nonsense.

Far better that we take fmg2’s approach, but meanwhile ensure that those who do engage in sexual activity before they are 16 are at least spared pregnancy so early in their lives.

Parents will always have problems accepting that their thirteen year old angel no longer yearns for a pony but has discovered what her parents discovered when they were her age. There is an industry pandering to the desires of children to look older than they are, dressing up and using make-up to appear eighteen when they're only fourteen. Schools are now Academys or a Campus, Schoolchildren are now Students in line with the desire to become an adult before time. Why express surprise when children begin fornicating when you should be expressing relief that they're using some form of reliable protection.

The one major problem I have with this very questionable 'service', is that I feel extremely uncomfortable about young people - who some people should remember are still technically considered children under law and by the greater majority of people in our society anyway - being adminstered medication of this nature without any obligation that their parents be informed.

I mean eg. if a young girl developed a serious health problem as a side effect of a contraceptive implant and still felt too awkward to mention having had the implant to their parents, and perhaps were to leave it too late to have the problem treated by a doctor, well then they might, possibly suffer very serious health consequences.

Also, are these young girls obliged to sign any legal documentation pre-the implant being administered? If so - and I could very well be wrong - I suspect that a girl, eg. as young as thirteen, might not be old enough for said document to be legally binding in the event of any serious health problem occuring, and in respect of any subsequent law suit against those responsible for administering the implant, being taken out.

Andrew Lansley might well be correct in saying that: "The law is very clear that if a child is competent and has the capacity to make a decision herself, the health professional concerned does not have the right under the law to overturn that without consent.”

However, I would have thought anway, that it does not neccessarily follow that any document that any thirteen might sign in the nature of consent, be legally binding.

I do know that if a potentially serious health problem were to happen to a child of mine, resulting in her suffering badly from such a 'service', well I'd do my best to sue the rear end off the relevant people concerned!

Scrutinizer wrote:
The one major problem I have with this very questionable 'service', is that I feel extremely uncomfortable about young people - who some people should remember are still technically considered children under law and by the greater majority of people in our society anyway - being adminstered medication of this nature without any obligation that their parents be informed.

I mean eg. if a young girl developed a serious health problem as a side effect of a contraceptive implant and still felt too awkward to mention having had the implant to their parents, and perhaps were to leave it too late to have the problem treated by a doctor, well then they might, possibly suffer very serious health consequences.

Also, are these young girls obliged to sign any legal documentation pre-the implant being administered? If so - and I could very well be wrong - I suspect that a girl, eg. as young as thirteen, might not be old enough for said document to be legally binding in the event of any serious health problem occuring, and in respect of any subsequent law suit against those responsible for administering the implant, being taken out.

Andrew Lansley might well be correct in saying that: "The law is very clear that if a child is competent and has the capacity to make a decision herself, the health professional concerned does not have the right under the law to overturn that without consent.”

However, I would have thought anway, that it does not neccessarily follow that any document that any thirteen might sign in the nature of consent, be legally binding.

I do know that if a potentially serious health problem were to happen to a child of mine, resulting in her suffering badly from such a 'service', well I'd do my best to sue the rear end off the relevant people concerned!

Who will you sue if your thirteen year old presents you with a grandchild?

Torchie1 wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote: The one major problem I have with this very questionable 'service', is that I feel extremely uncomfortable about young people - who some people should remember are still technically considered children under law and by the greater majority of people in our society anyway - being adminstered medication of this nature without any obligation that their parents be informed. I mean eg. if a young girl developed a serious health problem as a side effect of a contraceptive implant and still felt too awkward to mention having had the implant to their parents, and perhaps were to leave it too late to have the problem treated by a doctor, well then they might, possibly suffer very serious health consequences. Also, are these young girls obliged to sign any legal documentation pre-the implant being administered? If so - and I could very well be wrong - I suspect that a girl, eg. as young as thirteen, might not be old enough for said document to be legally binding in the event of any serious health problem occuring, and in respect of any subsequent law suit against those responsible for administering the implant, being taken out. Andrew Lansley might well be correct in saying that: "The law is very clear that if a child is competent and has the capacity to make a decision herself, the health professional concerned does not have the right under the law to overturn that without consent.” However, I would have thought anway, that it does not neccessarily follow that any document that any thirteen might sign in the nature of consent, be legally binding. I do know that if a potentially serious health problem were to happen to a child of mine, resulting in her suffering badly from such a 'service', well I'd do my best to sue the rear end off the relevant people concerned!

Who will you sue if your thirteen year old presents you with a grandchild?

No one.

I'd like to think that these things are safe- or, at least, a lot safer than French breast implants.

However, when a Government Minister makes an official statement to the effect that they are perfectly safe I start to get really worried.

Just another case of the goverment, like previous goverments, being out of touch and taking the country into moral decay.

So Lansley the so called Health Minister believes in the sexual moral
decline in this crap country.
Morals are already in the gutter. Next step down the sewer.
Lansley like most politicians is a
complete waste of space.
I wonder what Dodgy Denham will
have to say about this.

Redfield wrote:
What about telling her that it is wrong and aginst the law to engage in this before she is 16? Why isn't there more done to promote abstinence? Why have a law for sexual activity being illegal until 16. This country is arse about face and upside down.

Yes, and then once she's pregnant, we can all stand around saying "We told you so" before paying for the child for the next 18 years. Brilliant idea with no losers

eurogordi wrote:
Disgraceful. So what happens if a 13 year old girl tells the 13 year old boy that she has an implant when, in reality, she hasn't? If you are under 16 sex is illegal (even though some may be doing it). If one of the couple is over 16 then it becomes paedophilia.
Tell young teenagers the law, but don't encourage them to have sex that young by offering the pill, condoms, implants etc.
As the editor of the Daily Echo rightly said on BBC Solent this morning, this country has lost its moral backbone.

Please don't bandy around words you don't understand. This would, by very definition, *not* be paedophilia. Look it up. No, really, actually go ahead right now and research that word. Don't claim to already know what it means, because you clearly don't. Stop being so hysterical

George4th wrote:

chrisdemeanour wrote:
So this IS government policy then. I think this is one of the most shocking things I have ever heard and shame on anyone who defends it.

It was introduced by the Labour government. You personally may not have heard of it but it is law.
>
A thought - parents don't give consent for their children to have sex!!
>
IMHO the increase in teenage pregnancies co-insides with the increase in sex education.

Actually, in Southampton, an INCREASE in sex education (which is now taught alongside relationships education), coupled with clinics and drop-ins such as the one in question have led to a significant DECREASE in Southampton's teenage pregnancy rate since 1999. Whist no-one is comfortable with the thought of 13 year olds being sexually active, what we need to remember is that most young people DO wait until they are over 16 years before they have sex for the first time.

St Denys I.T.A wrote:

George4th wrote:

chrisdemeanour wrote:
So this IS government policy then. I think this is one of the most shocking things I have ever heard and shame on anyone who defends it.

It was introduced by the Labour government. You personally may not have heard of it but it is law.
>
A thought - parents don't give consent for their children to have sex!!
>
IMHO the increase in teenage pregnancies co-insides with the increase in sex education.

Actually, in Southampton, an INCREASE in sex education (which is now taught alongside relationships education), coupled with clinics and drop-ins such as the one in question have led to a significant DECREASE in Southampton's teenage pregnancy rate since 1999. Whist no-one is comfortable with the thought of 13 year olds being sexually active, what we need to remember is that most young people DO wait until they are over 16 years before they have sex for the first time.

I should have included STDs alongside pregnancies! That has definitely gone up!

George4th wrote:

St Denys I.T.A wrote:

George4th wrote:

chrisdemeanour wrote: So this IS government policy then. I think this is one of the most shocking things I have ever heard and shame on anyone who defends it.

It was introduced by the Labour government. You personally may not have heard of it but it is law. > A thought - parents don't give consent for their children to have sex!! > IMHO the increase in teenage pregnancies co-insides with the increase in sex education.

Actually, in Southampton, an INCREASE in sex education (which is now taught alongside relationships education), coupled with clinics and drop-ins such as the one in question have led to a significant DECREASE in Southampton's teenage pregnancy rate since 1999. Whist no-one is comfortable with the thought of 13 year olds being sexually active, what we need to remember is that most young people DO wait until they are over 16 years before they have sex for the first time.

I should have included STDs alongside pregnancies! That has definitely gone up!

Re: Increase of STI rates - this is why correct condom use should be part and parcel of any sex ed lesson- but imagine the outcry if this was the case!!!

This is a very bad idea, it affects every girl differently. I had the contraceptive inplant when i was 16. I became very depressed, tearful, irritable and very tired. I had it taken out a year later and afew months after that i felt normal again. If 13 year old girls have the implant they will affect them in all sorts of unwanted ways. They already have to contend with starting puberty which is life changing and confusing enough, as well as starting there GCSE's. I think if they accept the offer of the implant there will be alot of teenage girls very confused as to what is happening to there minds, as i did not put two and two together for a year of being very depressed, it is very confusing when you have no idea why you feel like that. This man has no idea how the high level of female hormones affect people. I think that sex ed in school needs to be tackled before drastic measures like this are brought in. Children need to understand the affects of STD's and pregnancy properly. When i left school i had only had two sex ed classes one in year 10 and one in year 11 and we were only shown how to put a condom on!!

The implants sound like a good idea in the right circumstances.

I mean come on, who would argue that things wouldn't be better if Andrew Lansley's mum had had one?


Ach, I'm sure he's a lovely guy. But he's still destroying the NHS.