Teen birth control to be reviewed (From Daily Echo)

Knowing the authorities who will be involved in this review and the debates that will forerun it, it will be at least four years before any recommendations are likely to result.

What planet are these douches from?

The girls are under 16 and therefore their parents are the ones responsible for them! If their parents say ok, then that is their choice.

Yes it may reduce unwanted pregnancies but its not going to stop unwanted STI's is it?

In essence you are saying its ok to go out and have under-age, unprotected sex if you have this implant - extremely bloody dangerous message!

Taskforce 141 - Well said! I'm the mother of a 4 year old, but when she is in her teens, I and/or my husband can discuss with her the options and consequences! I hope I have that "open" policy where she feels she can come to me. I will do my upmost to ensure she is not too young or doing anything behind my back.

Some people have blood conditions which can react with oral and implanted contraceptives, leading to deep vein thromboses and, potentially, death.

The patient's medical history must be taken into account before deciding on an appropriate contraception method.

How come the legal age of consent in Spain is 13 they are mostly Catholics, yet they don't have the teen pregnancy problem we have.
Because they deal with things in an adult manner, when you forbid children to do something it makes them think it must be good and then they want to do it more.
Let children have all the contraceptives and guidance at school they want and stop all these ridiculous Victorian taboos. We all know how grown up kids are now you cant turn back the clocks.

Saintlygirl wrote:
Taskforce 141 - Well said! I'm the mother of a 4 year old, but when she is in her teens, I and/or my husband can discuss with her the options and consequences! I hope I have that "open" policy where she feels she can come to me. I will do my upmost to ensure she is not too young or doing anything behind my back.

Being a supportive parent is important and many households will provide this. However, there are countless other households where the parent or parents are irresponsible themselves and provide no appropriate role model whatsoever for their offspring. These households are likely to be the ones where this type of service is likely to be most relevant.

i think its wrong that a 13 year old gets to choose whether or not to have it done its the parents choice to explain thing like this and at a certain age at 13 your body is going through enough as it is they dont need side affects to the implant aswell

Taskforce 141 wrote:
What planet are these douches from?

The girls are under 16 and therefore their parents are the ones responsible for them! If their parents say ok, then that is their choice.

Yes it may reduce unwanted pregnancies but its not going to stop unwanted STI's is it?

In essence you are saying its ok to go out and have under-age, unprotected sex if you have this implant - extremely bloody dangerous message!

Unfortunately your assuming all parents are responsible people - we all know this is not the case.

I'm assuming it's cheaper to treat VD than have everyone else pay for the child's upbringing & furnish them with a rent free house for years on end.

Just assuming...

The review needs to be around the implant (and possibly the pill too as someone has said a full medical history needs to be taken and if the teen doesn't disclose any history and the GP isn't informed it could again put them in danger) and the contraindications and the fact that this hasn't been tested on under 18s. I do feel it's important to keep confidential sexual advice in place but any 'procedure' then the teen should be persuaded to tell their parents.

The moral debate about teen sex will always be there, and there will always be really strong arguments on both sides. Of course 13 year olds shouldn't ideally be having sex (Spain actually are v. tight on that law and will chuck a man in jail if they think he's lied, whatever age! without a trial.....) but I do think perhaps we ought to think about lowering the age of consent now to 15. However, it is not just teens of 'ner'dowell' parents who have sex, as I've said in previous comments, if anyone thinks that they are 'immune' to this and that peer pressure, media, internet, doesn't play a part then they're kidding themselves.

I've seen the most sensible of girls get pregnant, and the most sensible of boys get girls pregnant - pregnancy and underage sex isn't confined to the chav population nor the upper classes! (whatever those are, I just use those as 'descriptive')

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
The review needs to be around the implant (and possibly the pill too as someone has said a full medical history needs to be taken and if the teen doesn't disclose any history and the GP isn't informed it could again put them in danger) and the contraindications and the fact that this hasn't been tested on under 18s. I do feel it's important to keep confidential sexual advice in place but any 'procedure' then the teen should be persuaded to tell their parents.

The moral debate about teen sex will always be there, and there will always be really strong arguments on both sides. Of course 13 year olds shouldn't ideally be having sex (Spain actually are v. tight on that law and will chuck a man in jail if they think he's lied, whatever age! without a trial.....) but I do think perhaps we ought to think about lowering the age of consent now to 15. However, it is not just teens of 'ner'dowell' parents who have sex, as I've said in previous comments, if anyone thinks that they are 'immune' to this and that peer pressure, media, internet, doesn't play a part then they're kidding themselves.

I've seen the most sensible of girls get pregnant, and the most sensible of boys get girls pregnant - pregnancy and underage sex isn't confined to the chav population nor the upper classes! (whatever those are, I just use those as 'descriptive')

"Spain actually are v. tight on that law and will chuck a man in jail if they think he's lied, whatever age! without a trial.....)" I think you'll find that the European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations and Amnesty International would all disagree with you on this point and the first two bodies actively legislate against it. Right to a fair trial and all that sort of thing that we take for granted.

bigfella777 wrote:
How come the legal age of consent in Spain is 13 they are mostly Catholics, yet they don't have the teen pregnancy problem we have.
Because they deal with things in an adult manner, when you forbid children to do something it makes them think it must be good and then they want to do it more.
Let children have all the contraceptives and guidance at school they want and stop all these ridiculous Victorian taboos. We all know how grown up kids are now you cant turn back the clocks.

Simple answer: They haven't made "single mother" a viable career option

Torchie1 wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
The review needs to be around the implant (and possibly the pill too as someone has said a full medical history needs to be taken and if the teen doesn't disclose any history and the GP isn't informed it could again put them in danger) and the contraindications and the fact that this hasn't been tested on under 18s. I do feel it's important to keep confidential sexual advice in place but any 'procedure' then the teen should be persuaded to tell their parents.

The moral debate about teen sex will always be there, and there will always be really strong arguments on both sides. Of course 13 year olds shouldn't ideally be having sex (Spain actually are v. tight on that law and will chuck a man in jail if they think he's lied, whatever age! without a trial.....) but I do think perhaps we ought to think about lowering the age of consent now to 15. However, it is not just teens of 'ner'dowell' parents who have sex, as I've said in previous comments, if anyone thinks that they are 'immune' to this and that peer pressure, media, internet, doesn't play a part then they're kidding themselves.

I've seen the most sensible of girls get pregnant, and the most sensible of boys get girls pregnant - pregnancy and underage sex isn't confined to the chav population nor the upper classes! (whatever those are, I just use those as 'descriptive')

"Spain actually are v. tight on that law and will chuck a man in jail if they think he's lied, whatever age! without a trial.....)" I think you'll find that the European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations and Amnesty International would all disagree with you on this point and the first two bodies actively legislate against it. Right to a fair trial and all that sort of thing that we take for granted.

They can put you in jail without a trial for up to two years...... they don't have juries either ( I used to live and work there). The Guardia Civil don't tend to 'ask questions first'. I've witnessed this myself and ask some of the lorry drivers who've 'accidentally' been carrying drugs and in some cases been falsely accused whether they've had a trial any time soon.... hangover from the Franco era I'm afraid

good old Jeremy will sort it out.
no wonder they are selling off the empty council houses, wont be able to get a home now. well done Jeremy another fine mess you have got in to

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
The review needs to be around the implant (and possibly the pill too as someone has said a full medical history needs to be taken and if the teen doesn't disclose any history and the GP isn't informed it could again put them in danger) and the contraindications and the fact that this hasn't been tested on under 18s. I do feel it's important to keep confidential sexual advice in place but any 'procedure' then the teen should be persuaded to tell their parents.

The moral debate about teen sex will always be there, and there will always be really strong arguments on both sides. Of course 13 year olds shouldn't ideally be having sex (Spain actually are v. tight on that law and will chuck a man in jail if they think he's lied, whatever age! without a trial.....) but I do think perhaps we ought to think about lowering the age of consent now to 15. However, it is not just teens of 'ner'dowell' parents who have sex, as I've said in previous comments, if anyone thinks that they are 'immune' to this and that peer pressure, media, internet, doesn't play a part then they're kidding themselves.

I've seen the most sensible of girls get pregnant, and the most sensible of boys get girls pregnant - pregnancy and underage sex isn't confined to the chav population nor the upper classes! (whatever those are, I just use those as 'descriptive')

"Spain actually are v. tight on that law and will chuck a man in jail if they think he's lied, whatever age! without a trial.....)" I think you'll find that the European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations and Amnesty International would all disagree with you on this point and the first two bodies actively legislate against it. Right to a fair trial and all that sort of thing that we take for granted.

They can put you in jail without a trial for up to two years...... they don't have juries either ( I used to live and work there). The Guardia Civil don't tend to 'ask questions first'. I've witnessed this myself and ask some of the lorry drivers who've 'accidentally' been carrying drugs and in some cases been falsely accused whether they've had a trial any time soon.... hangover from the Franco era I'm afraid

The Spanish legal system may not have the due process of the UK system but they have to have standards acceptable to the European Court of Justice or Spain faces being hauled up for non-compliance. I'm sure that you found many unacceptable practices under Franco but that was thirty or forty years ago. As for for the poor innocent truck driver smuggling drugs.......... the UK prisons are full of the hard done by citizens stitched up by the fascist police state as they prefer to think of themselves instead of admitting they were stupid and got caught.

I believe that in the wrong hands this could be disasterous! Yes, I do agree it may decrease teen pregnancies which is great but how long until you see a sharp rise in sti's??
When I was young and naive this would have been the worst thing ever to have offered as it would just have led to a lot of people in my school pointlessly sleeping around as there's a minimal risk factor. (I do understand there are teens out there that would use it properly).
Lastly, I remember going to the doctor just before my 16th and being offered the pill (as an alternative treatment to something else) and they told me I couldn't get it without parental consent. So, how in five years have we gone from needing parental consent for the pill from the doctors to having this 'minor operation' given in a SCHOOL to a 13 year old WITHOUT any parental consent.

If it was my child I would be mortified!! (sorry for the essay)

This move is a green light to legitimise under age sex. What sort of society do we live in where young girls are almost encouraged by the state to do this?

Shoong wrote:

Taskforce 141 wrote:
What planet are these douches from?

The girls are under 16 and therefore their parents are the ones responsible for them! If their parents say ok, then that is their choice.

Yes it may reduce unwanted pregnancies but its not going to stop unwanted STI's is it?

In essence you are saying its ok to go out and have under-age, unprotected sex if you have this implant - extremely bloody dangerous message!

Unfortunately your assuming all parents are responsible people - we all know this is not the case.

I'm assuming it's cheaper to treat VD than have everyone else pay for the child's upbringing & furnish them with a rent free house for years on end.

Just assuming...

Your right, not all parents are responsible, i have seen some major disgraceful excuses of parents and it sad.

I'm sure it is cheaper to deal with one case of VD than bringing up a child on the benefit system, but what sort of hair brained thinking is that?

Ok, so instead of VD the child catches HIV - now what is the cost difference? but then catching HIV and not going to the doctors as they are not pregnant thanks to a implant secretly acquired, they then pass on that HIV to other students and before you know it you have wiped out all of year 10!

If you suggest sex is perfectly safe without a condom then you are setting your child up for a cataclysmic fall!

Condor Man wrote:
This move is a green light to legitimise under age sex. What sort of society do we live in where young girls are almost encouraged by the state to do this?

No it's not. Young PEOPLE (coz these girls are not having sex with themselves!) who are sexually active 'underage' are in the MINORITY, not the majority. It's going to happen, so we have to make sure young people are kept safe and make safe choices. The answer is easy access to condoms for young people - this protects against pregnancy AND STI's. Would those who oppose the implant and pill due to concerns about medical impact on the young person agree with this approach?

In addition to the should the parents know debate there is also a very real medical problem here: even the child's GP did not know. Hormone based contraceptives do interact with other medicines and some other medicines make such contraceptives not work (which the GP when prescribing the medicine would not have know to warn her about putting her at risk of pregnancy unnecessarily). For MEDICAL reasons the GP SHOULD BE TOLD.