NHS implants birth control without consent or knowlege...

[billc]

The British National Health Service implanted birth control chemicals in teenage girls without their parents knowledge or consent...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/girls-13-get-secret-birth-control-676673

Girls as young as 13 have been injected with contraceptive implants at school without their parents’ knowledge.
The controversial procedure was carried out on pupils to cut underage pregnancies in one city.
It is unknown how many teenagers have taken part in the scheme at the nine secondary schools.
But the revelation has caused outrage among some parents who were unaware their daughters were fitted with the 4cm device which is implanted under the skin.
Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, blasted: “Parents send their children to school to receive a good education, not to be undermined by health workers who give their children contraceptives behind their backs.

Are the facts in this accurate?

 

[Flying Crane]

I don't know anything about this in the UK, but there was that ugly little eugenics episode in the US back in the 1950s and later. A lot of "feeble minded" girls (actually simply low-income and often of African American heritage) who were judged as "promiscuous" (often meaning they were raped, in some cases by their own fathers) and were forcibly sterilized, often without the girl realizing what they had done to them.

It's an ugly thing, no matter where it might be happening.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I don't know anything about this in the UK, but there was that ugly little eugenics episode in the US back in the 1950s and later. A lot of "feeble minded" girls (actually simply low-income and often of African American heritage) who were judged as "promiscuous" (often meaning they were raped, in some cases by their own fathers) and were forcibly sterilized, often without the girl realizing what they had done to them.

It's an ugly thing, no matter where it might be happening.

Um, did you actually read the article? There is absolutely nothing in it that has anything whatsoever to do with eugenics. It's purely about providing contraceptives to minors. Personally, I am in favor of providing effective contraception to anybody who wants it, but would like to think they're also providing condoms, since implanted contraceptives do nothing to protect from STDs.

 

[Flying Crane]

Um, did you actually read the article? There is absolutely nothing in it that has anything whatsoever to do with eugenics. It's purely about providing contraceptives to minors. Personally, I am in favor of providing effective contraception to anybody who wants it, but would like to think they're also providing condoms, since implanted contraceptives do nothing to protect from STDs.

Oh ****!!! I only read the exerpt, and completel MIS-read what was there. wow. my bad.

thanks for catching that for me.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The British National Health Service implanted birth control chemicals in teenage girls without their parents knowledge or consent...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/girls-13-get-secret-birth-control-676673

Are the facts in this accurate?

Might be.

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-sty...th-control-parental-consent-article-1.1019084

However, from what I've read, there are no laws controlling distributing birth control to minors without parental consent in the US, either. I don't know if it is commonly done.

 

[Sukerkin]

Precisely, DD. Whilst I am much more in favour of young teenage girls not cavorting about making the 'beast with two backs', for the reason that their physical capability to do so is in advance of their emotional capability to deal with the consequences, it is far better to take some action to help prevent those consequences than to trust to luck.

To elaborate on this issue in a wider temporal context, Family Planning clinics have been tasked with assisting in this regard for decades, it is the more 'modern' method that has caught the eye of the press at this juncture, just as did the Pill when it was new.

It is a shame that those in need of the assistance all too often do not seek it until it is too late and that their too-tender years are matched by the similar age of their 'partners' (meaning that these boys are all too keen to wield their 'manhood' without a thought of taking on the mantle and responsibilities of being a 'father').

 

[granfire]

well, if they had taken on the mantle of responsibilities they would not be father...


Ah, bad joke. I quit while I am not too far behind.

 

[ballen0351]

So the with out parents knowledge does not bother you? So when you daughter has a reaction to the BC and you have no idea what's wrong and she's to afraid or cant tell you what happened thats ok?

 

[Dirty Dog]

So the with out parents knowledge does not bother you? So when you daughter has a reaction to the BC and you have no idea what's wrong and she's to afraid or cant tell you what happened thats ok?

Spurious, pointless, and downright silly. If she's not willing to talk to you about the contraception in the (rare) event of an adverse reaction, she for SURE isn't going to discuss contraception with you under any other circumstances.
In any case, that's but one of many reasons why we routinely talk to minor patients AWAY from their parents.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think it is a difficult question. For males, providing contraception is a prophylactic. Unless he's got a latex allergy, he's not going to die of it. He won't suffer long-term health risks.

For a female, it's not that simple. Birth control pills, and injected or implanted devices or chemicals, could represent a medical threat immediately or far down the road in the future.

We talk about informed consent; we don't let children drink, get tattoos, and we require parental consent for immunization for diseases. I'm not sure giving female children surgical procedures to prevent pregnancy is a great idea without parental consent; or at the very least, parental notification.

And frankly, I'm not even sure public schools should be in the business of providing contraceptives in the first place. In what way are they qualified medical providers? When I went to school, we had a 'school nurse', but certainly no prescribing doctor on staff, and most schools I'm aware of don't have nurses anymore.

Personally, I would find this act in itself reason enough to withdraw a child from that school. "Let me get this straight. If my daughter comes to you and says she wants to receive an injection providing birth control protection, you will give it to her, and you will not seek my permission nor notify me?" "That is correct." "And if I ask you if my daughter is receiving birth control from you, you will not tell me?" "That is correct." "OK, see ya."

 

[Dirty Dog]

I think it is a difficult question. For males, providing contraception is a prophylactic. Unless he's got a latex allergy, he's not going to die of it. He won't suffer long-term health risks.

Implanted contraceptives ARE prophylactics. You're thinking of condoms, which are only ONE sort of prophylatic.

For a female, it's not that simple. Birth control pills, and injected or implanted devices or chemicals, could represent a medical threat immediately or far down the road in the future.

Maybe, possibly, it's conceivable. But an unplanned pregnancy and/or an STD WILL represent a threat. Absolutely. No doubt about it.

We talk about informed consent; we don't let children drink, get tattoos, and we require parental consent for immunization for diseases. I'm not sure giving female children surgical procedures to prevent pregnancy is a great idea without parental consent; or at the very least, parental notification.

Immunizations are done in infant/childhood. If a 13 year old wants to be vaccinated, they can be.

And frankly, I'm not even sure public schools should be in the business of providing contraceptives in the first place. In what way are they qualified medical providers? When I went to school, we had a 'school nurse', but certainly no prescribing doctor on staff, and most schools I'm aware of don't have nurses anymore.

Personally, I would find this act in itself reason enough to withdraw a child from that school. "Let me get this straight. If my daughter comes to you and says she wants to receive an injection providing birth control protection, you will give it to her, and you will not seek my permission nor notify me?" "That is correct." "And if I ask you if my daughter is receiving birth control from you, you will not tell me?" "That is correct." "OK, see ya."

Spurious, pointless and downright silly. The school isn't providing the contraception. The National Health Service (the same people who provide all the other health care) is. In your hometown, Bill, if your daughter goes to her health care provider, or the city/county health department, or planned parenthood, or any of a number of other places, she can ask for contraception and she will be given it.

And if she's going to be sexually active, then it's far far better that she use contraception than not.

 

[MJS]

After reading the posts in this thread, I find myself in agreement with DD. Now, as I've said before, someone needs to teach kids about sex. If someone thinks that its not necessary or that it 'wont happen to my child' then, I'm sorry, but those folks are living in fantasy land.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Implanted contraceptives ARE prophylactics. You're thinking of condoms, which are only ONE sort of prophylatic.

Fair point, but since you know what I meant, then you understand what I meant. There's a world of difference between handing a boy a French Letter and giving a girl an injection in terms of physical risk. Sorry I used a word you find imprecise.

Maybe, possibly, it's conceivable. But an unplanned pregnancy and/or an STD WILL represent a threat. Absolutely. No doubt about it.

I'm not arguing that. But I would suggest that a child's parents have a right to know when their child is subjected to such risk. Perhaps they might register an objection; as I believe is their right.

Immunizations are done in infant/childhood. If a 13 year old wants to be vaccinated, they can be.

I'm not sure you're making a point here. It doesn't really matter when the child gets an immunization. The point is, they don't get one without parental knowledge and consent; at least not here in the US to the best of my knowledge. If we require parental consent for an immunization, I don't see what's wrong with requiring it for contraception, especially implanted chemical forms.

Spurious, pointless and downright silly. The school isn't providing the contraception. The National Health Service (the same people who provide all the other health care) is. In your hometown, Bill, if your daughter goes to her health care provider, or the city/county health department, or planned parenthood, or any of a number of other places, she can ask for contraception and she will be given it.

I'm not sure that's true; but if it is, I'm certain I don't agree with it. And that was what I was saying; this is my opinion, and I'm quite certain I'm entitled to have one.

And if she's going to be sexually active, then it's far far better that she use contraception than not.

And my opinion is that's not your choice to make; nor hers. As a parent of a minor child, it would be mine and her mother's.

I'm very uncomfortable with this wholesale move towards believing the state has rights over our bodies and over the bodies of our children that we as individuals and parents do not. If that's your opinion, so mote it be. It is not my opinion. I won't call yours silly, spurious, or pointless; kindly refrain from being insulting if you wish to discuss this.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

After reading the posts in this thread, I find myself in agreement with DD. Now, as I've said before, someone needs to teach kids about sex. If someone thinks that its not necessary or that it 'wont happen to my child' then, I'm sorry, but those folks are living in fantasy land.

Fantasy land or not, is it the state's job to teach it? And if it is, is it also the state's job to provide surgical procedures ensuring no pregnancy will result? And if it is, is it also the state's job to not only not seek the parent's permission, but to deny knowledge of it to the parents if asked? I think even if you agree that the state has a right to teach sex education, the rest is a step too far.

 

[MJS]

1) And my opinion is that's not your choice to make; nor hers. As a parent of a minor child, it would be mine and her mother's.

2) I'm very uncomfortable with this wholesale move towards believing the state has rights over our bodies and over the bodies of our children that we as individuals and parents do not. If that's your opinion, so mote it be. It is not my opinion. I won't call yours silly, spurious, or pointless; kindly refrain from being insulting if you wish to discuss this.

I know you're directing this to DD, but I'd like to comment.

1) Point taken. Question: when you were a child, did you always adhere to the choices that your parents made for you, or did you try to get away with things behind their back?

2) Like I said, someone should be teaching the kids. A parent, a doctor, a nurse, someone from the church the family belongs to, etc. IMO, the more people say that its bad, that you shouldn't do this, and so forth, the more curiosity is going to be raised. I'd rather my son/daughter be educated and prepared, than have them come to me and say they're pregnant/or got someone pregnant.

 

[MJS]

Fantasy land or not, is it the state's job to teach it? And if it is, is it also the state's job to provide surgical procedures ensuring no pregnancy will result? And if it is, is it also the state's job to not only not seek the parent's permission, but to deny knowledge of it to the parents if asked? I think even if you agree that the state has a right to teach sex education, the rest is a step too far.

See my other post. As for the state providing services...well, they already do....all at the expense of the taxpayer.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I know you're directing this to DD, but I'd like to comment.

1) Point taken. Question: when you were a child, did you always adhere to the choices that your parents made for you, or did you try to get away with things behind their back?

I tried to get away with everything I could. And as soon as I knew what it was for, I tried to get a leg over as soon as I could. Does that mean the state should be my co-conspirator? I may have fooled my parents; does that mean the state should help me fool them?

2) Like I said, someone should be teaching the kids. A parent, a doctor, a nurse, someone from the church the family belongs to, etc. IMO, the more people say that its bad, that you shouldn't do this, and so forth, the more curiosity is going to be raised. I'd rather my son/daughter be educated and prepared, than have them come to me and say they're pregnant/or got someone pregnant.

I can accept that. What I can't accept is that you can make the decision to turn that choice over to the state for MY children, even if you want it for yours. I don't tell you how to raise your children, nor do I feel you should have the state do the work for you. You seem to feel that if YOU think it's a good idea for you, it's also a good idea for me, and should even be the law.

Since you're so OK with your child having birth control given by the school, I can imagine you'd have no trouble if they asked for your permission. But you'd deny me the right to be asked for my permission regarding my own children?

I could imagine a compromise. Let's say the default is "I am OK with you giving my child contraceptives" unless a parent opts-out. In other words, if a parent says nothing, then give the kid the rubbers or put them on the pill. If the parent informs the school that they cannot do so, then they cannot do so. Concerned parents can file their objections prior to the school year; schools would abide by that decision. That would work for me; how about you?

 

[Dirty Dog]

Fair point, but since you know what I meant, then you understand what I meant. There's a world of difference between handing a boy a French Letter and giving a girl an injection in terms of physical risk. Sorry I used a word you find imprecise.

It's not a matter of me finding it imprecise. The meaning of the word makes it incorrect. You're usually better about things like that.

I'm not sure you're making a point here. It doesn't really matter when the child gets an immunization. The point is, they don't get one without parental knowledge and consent; at least not here in the US to the best of my knowledge. If we require parental consent for an immunization, I don't see what's wrong with requiring it for contraception, especially implanted chemical forms.

I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious; the point is that infants really cannot make a decision. A 13 year old can. Not always a GOOD one, but a decision none the less. And if she's making the decision to be sexually active, and, for whatever reason, cannot discuss the issue of contraception with her parents, then it's far better that she be able to get it from someone else, rather than be subjected to an unplanned pregnancy and/or STD.
Of course, you CAN (to some extent) control a minors access to tatto and alcohol. You don't really think you can control their access to sexual partners, do you?

I'm not sure that's true; but if it is, I'm certain I don't agree with it. And that was what I was saying; this is my opinion, and I'm quite certain I'm entitled to have one.

Certainly you're entitled to your opinion. But the fact is, your daughter CAN get contraceptives at any number of places, right here in the US. You certainly don't have to agree with it, but that is the way it is. By all means, teach your children your moral code, and do everything you reasonably can to convince them to abide by it. I'm behind you 100% in that. But if/when they decide to become sexually active, then, like it or not, it's best that they use contraception.

And my opinion is that's not your choice to make; nor hers. As a parent of a minor child, it would be mine and her mother's.

Really? It is? And would you please enlighten the rest of the world on how YOU are going to decide if SHE is going to be sexually active? And how, exactly, do you support the idea that it's better for this sexually active minor NOT to use contraception?

The fact is that it's NOT up to you. It's up to her, regardless of what any of us may think of her choice. And if she's going to be sexually active, [see above].

I'm very uncomfortable with this wholesale move towards believing the state has rights over our bodies and over the bodies of our children that we as individuals and parents do not. If that's your opinion, so mote it be. It is not my opinion. I won't call yours silly, spurious, or pointless; kindly refrain from being insulting if you wish to discuss this.

Again, I thought context made it obvious; what is spurious, pointless and downright silly is your comments about schools providing medical care, when it is painfully obvious that they are NOT. You might as well have commented that schools should not be providing atomic bombs to students, since they're not doing that either, and it would be every bit as applicable to the issue.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I could imagine a compromise. Let's say the default is "I am OK with you giving my child contraceptives" unless a parent opts-out. In other words, if a parent says nothing, then give the kid the rubbers or put them on the pill. If the parent informs the school that they cannot do so, then they cannot do so. Concerned parents can file their objections prior to the school year; schools would abide by that decision. That would work for me; how about you?

That will work for me, just as soon as you can come up with a way to prevent them from having sex. An effective way, mind you, not just saying "don't do it!" since that has been shown over the couple thousand years, to be ineffective.

 

[MJS]

I tried to get away with everything I could. And as soon as I knew what it was for, I tried to get a leg over as soon as I could. Does that mean the state should be my co-conspirator? I may have fooled my parents; does that mean the state should help me fool them?

Maybe I should've kept these are 1 question, but I think what I was trying to say here, applies to what I said in #2 as well. Putting the state aside, my main point was that the more parents say no no no, the more kids will be tempted. Why are they saying no? What is this sex stuff they dont want me to know about?

I can accept that. What I can't accept is that you can make the decision to turn that choice over to the state for MY children, even if you want it for yours. I don't tell you how to raise your children, nor do I feel you should have the state do the work for you. You seem to feel that if YOU think it's a good idea for you, it's also a good idea for me, and should even be the law.

Since you're so OK with your child having birth control given by the school, I can imagine you'd have no trouble if they asked for your permission. But you'd deny me the right to be asked for my permission regarding my own children?

I could imagine a compromise. Let's say the default is "I am OK with you giving my child contraceptives" unless a parent opts-out. In other words, if a parent says nothing, then give the kid the rubbers or put them on the pill. If the parent informs the school that they cannot do so, then they cannot do so. Concerned parents can file their objections prior to the school year; schools would abide by that decision. That would work for me; how about you?

I dont have to worry about the state. Why? Well, first off, my wife and I don't have kids, but if we did, I'd make sure that we explained things to them. Hey, if they school requires sex ed, thats fine too. Go ahead..teach away..lol. Actually Bill, to be honest with you, what I hate to see, is all these kids having kids. Were they taught about sex but just chose to disregard the lessons....or were they never taught, decided to experiment, and now they're stuck with a kid?

Furthermore, it wouldn't matter to me if the school handed out condoms or not....I'd rather give them the things myself, with the know-how to use it, and be safe, rather than have them come to me and tell me I'm going to be a Grandpa.

I may be wrong, but it seems your beef is with the state/schools doing what you'd rather do. Am I correct? If so, I'm cool with that, but again, kids need to be taught. IMO, people fooling themselves into thinking that it wont happen, is a recipe for disaster.