Girls, 13, given contraceptive implants

[deadparrot]

The British National Health Service is giving girls as young as 13 injections and implants that make them infertile for up to three years.

Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act show that in a sample of five primary care trusts, seven 13-year-old girls have received either an implant or an injection in the past year, the Sunday Times of London reports.

The figures also show children as young as 12 have been given the morning-after pill. In the same five trusts, one 12-year-old girl and 40 13-year-old girls have been given the emergency contraception after unprotected sex in the past year.

Many parents are likely to be alarmed by the figures, particularly because medical staffs do not routinely inform parents without the child's consent.

http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=214008&cat=World

[sasquatch]

1. Sounds like a good idea

You shouldn't be able to have kids until you're eighteen anyway.

[bammertheblue]

2. If my child did that

I'd be alarmed too, but at least glad they were being responsible. 12 and 13 is too young to be having sex IMO, but saying "I forbid it" is just going to make it more alluring.
If they're going to do it, at least they're thinking about the consequences.

[Rigby Reardon]

10. I disagree

"but saying "I forbid it" is just going to make it more alluring."

Someone has to be the parent. Better that it is you.

[bammertheblue]

22. I'm not a parent

that probably makes a difference. (I'm only 22)
And yes, I would say "Don't do it"- I didn't make that clear in my first post. I guess I meant that getting up on a soapbox as opposed to having an informed, intelligent conversation with your child (if that's even possible with a 13-year old) is probably not effective.
I understand your opinion. I'm feeling kind of "off" tonight.

[Rigby Reardon]

73. I wasn't really picking on you,

It was meant for everyone.

[Warpy]

3. The implants and morning after pills are probably a lot kinder

to the developing systems of very young girl children than pregnancy and childbirth, or even pregnancy and early abortion would be.

Any child this age who is having sex is already out from under parental control regarding sexual issues and reproductive health. Although girls from healthy families will likely involve their parents, girls who are sexually active this young are generally not from healthy families.

Giving them care that will allow them to live through it without risking permanent damage to health or even their lives is probably the best a bad situation can offer.

Note: people who think they're OK with eleven year old girl children giving birth need to Google the words "cystocele" and "rectocele." And those are two of the most benign and easily repaired complications.

[artr2]

4. This is an excellent idea.

As we mature as human beings, entering puberty brings an interest in why our bodies are changing. Reproduction is one of the most powerful forces in our beings. Prevention of pregnancy during this time will insure that babies are not born before the parents are ready for the awesome responsibility of parenthood. If parents are alarmed that their children are availing themselves of this service, then the parents are not paying attention to their children. These young women that have taken the responsibility of not becoming pregnant while they are too young emotionally to raze a child are to be applauded.

Narrow minded, sexually repressed individuals will find something to complain about with this plan. Tim Loughton who is mentioned in this article shows that he is a narrow minded, sexually repressed asshole. He thinks that giving contraception to children as young as 13 is “losing the battle for responsible sexual behavior in young people”. I believe that this is a textbook example of responsible sexual behavior.

[rodeodance]

5. glad to see that the brits are doing this.

[Triana]

6. I don't see the problem ....

... with preventing uwanted pregnancy in underage girls. Having sex at that age is a bit too young but preaching against it just makes it that much more alluring to them. Talking self-respect and common sense will go a lot further. And I have to agree with another poster that this stuff would be a lot easier on the girls developing body than pregnancy and childbirth - pro-birthers be damned (they think females are nothing but breed sows anyway).

I know several girls whose Moms went to the Dr. with them and gave their approval to have their daughters put on the pill at age 13 or 14. It's common sense. From what I can tell, those girls were no more 'promiscuous' or 'wild' than any others who didn't have the protection because their parents taught them common sense, self-awareness, and self-respect. Some of their friends were aghast but I saw and still see no problem with it. It's being realistic, honest, and it's common sense. They grew up just fine. Very level-headed, confident, successful and smart young women in control of their bodies and of their lives.

[LisaL]

12. The point is, in your stories, mothers took kids in to get implants.

In the OP story, the parents weren't even informed. Now, the nurse in school wouldn't give my kid an aspirin without my consent. Even then, I would have to show up in that damn school bearing the aspirin for kid to get it. But apparently somebody can implant something into the kid without parents even knowing about it? What if the kid decided to be permanently sterilized at 13? Should that be done, without parents ever knowing anything?

[pop goes the weasel]

21. it said the parents didn't necessarily know

That's different than saying that they weren't informed. The law in Britain is that the parents aren't told without the consent of the child. But really, how many 12 and 13 year olds are going to the clinic on their own for contraception? I bet most of them were brought by their parents and that this story is just an attempt to get the nosy nellies in an uproar.

[Triana]

27. I still don't see the problem...

...better the girls take it upon themselves to prevent unwanted pregnancy. But these are not sterilization methods, just birth control. Those are not the same things.

Ideally, parents would be partners with their daughters in discussing and implementing such preventative measures but if kids feel they can't go to their parents and want to take responsibility for themselves then I think this is generally a good and wise thing. I don't think using birth control makes them any more sexually active than they'd otherwise be or any more or less at risk for STDs - that is a whole other pool of risk there.

[Baconfoot]

60. What aspirin related privacy & reproductive issues are"they"keeping secret

Everytime I hear that aspirin line or see it in print I ask myself what do THEY know about aspirin and asthma medication that I don't such that the cases are actually parallel!

That ship don't sail.

[oldcoot]

69. I have mixed feelings about this

I can appreciate your position. However, when I was a child I had a friend who got pregnant at the age 13 and either decided or was forced to decide to have the child. Unfortunately, I stopped hanging around with her because she was shipped off to an alternate school. I cannot help to think that she would have been better off if she has used some birth control (even if her mother did not approve).

As for sterilizing children, I do not believe that doctors should perform any permanent surgery on anyone under 18 years old without parental consent unless this surgery is necessary to protect the life or health of the child. For what it is worth, doctors do not seem to eager to sterilize adult women even if the women beg to be sterilized so they probably are going not going to be eager to sterilize a child.

[StrafingMoose]

7. Good idea..

I agree, a baby at 13 is too early.

But just look it up in 20 years; "Oops, we 'miscalculed' and you are, forever, infertile and this was all a sick population control plan or a test related to it".

[Sgent]

8. Implants (Norplant)

have been around for at least a decade -- and they use the same drug that's in the BC pill, just with a extended release mechanism.

The Norplants at least can be removed at anytime, and at least in the US for free (you pay the entire cost upfront, and the doctor has to bill the company for the removal).

[LisaL]

24. Birth control pills increase the likelihood of blood clots.

In rare cases, the results can be lethal. If the parents are not even informed about their child being on birth control, and the child develops some sort of complications, who is going to be responsible for that?

[electron_blue]

72. Getting pregnant, having an abortion or carrying to term is far more

risky than taking any birth control. Chances are that unsuspecting parents would also be clueless about an abortion or the child keeping the pregnancy until it was too late, either. And the parents would still be responsible for any complications due to the latter two events.

[woodsprite]

34. Alot of times you have a hard time having kids after having

these implanted for a sustained time frame. Quite a few of the people who are treated for IVF are people who are coming off of these implants and injectible, long term contraceptions. I'm talking 3-4 yrs after coming off and their systems are still not functioning properly. If you've already had kids and you want to do these than that's fine, but they should not be using them on kids.

[Petrushka]

62. Or: "Oh, no! We did NOT miscalculate! . . .

. . . We knew what the outcome would be; and, it's simply a coincidence that so many of their babies are being born deaf, blind, and with flippers."

[LisaL]

9. The problem with it is that parents are not informed.

Because the kids are minors, parents normally make medical decisions. Unless, for some reason, kids are dealing with reproduction.

[WindRavenX]

11. Parents should not be required to be notified in these cases

Fewer minors would take the correct approach in getting birth control if they feared parental repercussions, and this would probably lead to an increase of unplanned pregnancies and abortions.

[LisaL]

13. Well, parents make the decisions.

The kid is 13. What if kids decide to have permanent sterilization at that age? According to you, it should be done, if those decisions are left solely to the kids. I mean, come on, the kids are just too young to make some decisions for themselves.

[WindRavenX]

14. first, it's not sterilization

It's a form of BC that releases synthetic progesterone and other hormones, like the pill, to prevent pregnancy. It does NOT sterilize, and no sterilization (or other permanent operation) will be done on someone that young. No doctor would do it, and I'm pretty sure it's also illegal.

These kids are doing the right thing-- they're too young to give birth, but they're obviously having sex. Would you prevent them from obtaining BC, and risk them fucking the rest of their lives up as a consequence?

[LisaL]

15. I realize they are not permanently sterilized.

But even if they have this BC, it might not prevent them from "fucking the rest of their lives up" if they get an STD.
All I say is that parents should be informed, because kids are not mature enough to make these decisions. For any other medical problem, parents are going to be informed, but not for this? What gives?

[Mend]

16. being grounded for life? Kids don't want their parents to know

because they want to be with their friends. You might well decide your sexually active 13 year old should stay in her room for a few years.

[LisaL]

18. There are things much worse than a baby.

Implanted with this devise, a teen will have unprotected sex. And if she gets something nasty as a result, who is going to deal with that?

[bettyellen]

29. her and her doctor, again without the parents knowing, are going to deal

with any STD quite easily. wow... you so don't get it, that a kid will wait and delay and just have the completely unwanted baby or let the disease progress rather than to be forced to discuss this with their parents. this is the status quo, but it's news to you, huh?

[LisaL]

30. How on Earth the kid is going to deal with it, without the parents

knowing? Child this age lives at home. She would need to take medications, be taken for appointments, etc. She can't even drive. Her and her Dr. will deal with it? LOL.

[bettyellen]

32. i did, i know lots of teens that did what they had to do to take care of

themselves. nothing wrong with taking responsibilty for my own body. but, i wasn't driven everywhere, and back then there were low and no cost clinics, so i just found one. unlike some friends who dropped out to give birth before they finished HS. glad i wan't that stupid. and you know what, i would have never told my mom, and i still haven't, LOL. she'd have freaked the fuck out if i was forty and having sex and enjoying it, let alone fifteen. she'd never understand, but i have no regrets. :shrug:

[LisaL]

35. Then WTF do these services have opposite effect on

teen pregnancy and STD rates?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3594469.stm

[bettyellen]

31. wow, you don't care if she gets pregnant, just that she gets an STD.....

somehow it seems your concerns are misplaced, especially since a kid that is seeing a gyno had the STD counseling/ testing /treatment covered, without your help or her parents. that's esentially what the access to health care is all about, especially when you are young. they are all over aids/ std prevention, it's always topic #2, after using the BC effectively.
but, uh, tks for your "concern".

[LisaL]

33. I wasn't actually talking about Britain, but o'key-they

don't seem to be taking such good care of it after all.
"LONDON, April 5, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A UK study has revealed that improved access to reproductive and sexual health clinics for teens actually increases sexually transmitted disease and out-of-wedlock birth rates. The study proposes that having clinics available fosters a false sense of security, making teens more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviours they might not otherwise have engaged in had there been no easy access to morning-after pills or abortions."
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/04040501.html

[bettyellen]

36. that conclusion seems false... just because more kids are having sex

(and they are, according to this) it's the clinics fault? i think that BS reasoning, pure speculation, at best. it's definately skewed to make you feel good about denying health care (no one can drive them anyway, right?) and just tell them to have the unwanted babies (because it's not the worst that could happen)? there's so much in your posts that's biased against reproductive freedom, it's almost as bad as the fundie blame game. that's BS, no sale.

[LisaL]

37. I didn't make that conclusion, the author of the study did.

If you think that's bogus-well, fine. But since these services became available, teen pregnancy rates and STDs have increased. So, the services aren't doing what they were intended for, are they?
Unless their goal was to increase the rates of teen pregnancy and STDs.

[bettyellen]

40. perhaps they are just treating what would have been untreated?

but there's no way they can show that as a cause and effect. they don't claim to, either. in the blip you quoted, it's the author's quoted "proposal" that there is a relationship. but who the hell know what his agenda is? hell, i blame cable tv and the competative culture we live in, but i'm not proposing it's scientific fact.

[LisaL]

41. Or perhaps they are creating more problems where there were

less problems before.
I find it very easy to believe that children can be lured by false sense of security.

[bettyellen]

43. but we agree, as your links says, it's mere speculation.

same as my cable tv proposal.
:shrug:

[LisaL]

46. Regardless of the conclusion, what do Brits have to show for it?

Did the services achieve the desired results, which was to prevent spread of STDs and teen pregnancy-no. Opposite results were achieved. Even if you do not think the study has show a direct link and effect, clearly, having these services did not lead to the desired results.
And a lot of money was spend, I am sure. Without anything to show for it, really.

[bettyellen]

48. if they are treating the STDs, then there's plenty to show for it....

but you've shown a anti-reproductive healthcare bias, so i'm not suprised you'd come to that conclusion and devalue the healthcare given.
:shrug:

[LisaL]

49. And they wouldn't treat STDs otherwise?

[bettyellen]

54. You left this part out : there has been a 10% reduction teen pregnancy

"Since 1998, the baseline year for the Strategy, there has been a 10% reduction in the under 18 conception rate."

A Department of Health spokesman said: "The number of family planning sessions aimed at young people has increased as a direct response to wanting to tackle high levels of teenage pregnancies and increasing STIs.
"In turn, increased provision will have created greater opportunities for raising awareness of STIs, resulting in increased screening and testing.
"This will have contributed to higher rates of STI diagnoses not higher rates of infection."
He added: "Increasing rates of STIs and high levels of teenage pregnancy have complex underlying causes, requiring multifaceted prevention solutions.
"Increasing and improving access to contraception and sexual health advice services is one essential part of the Government's Teenage Pregnancy and Sexual Health Strategies which are aiming to improve young people's sexual health.
"In addition we are also helping young people to resist pressure to have sex, improving sex and relationship education to increase their knowledge and skills, and supporting parents to talk to their children.

Of course, this is not from the Pro-Breeding site you quoted, it's from the Dept of Health.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3594469.stm

[WindRavenX]

65. I'm going to call a big ol' call of BULLSHIT on that study

Lifesite.net? Please. :eyes:

This would be possibly the only study I've seen that suggests that access to contraception devices and advices leads to an increase of STDs/pregnancies. All other EU counties report the exact opposite.

[TheWraith]

38. You're the one who doesn't get it.

Anything that prevents against STDs, like a condom, also prevents pregnancy. But birth control drugs do NOT prevent STDs. The main reason why you would need birth control is if you were going to be having unprotected sex. Yes, some people might use BC as a backup, but it's unlikely that most of these girls will. Hence, they're likely still at risk for STDs even though they think they're protected, and doctors can do little to stop that. That's why parental involvement is better. You seem to be saying that it's a-okay that parents are aloof, clueless, and that there's very young girls running around having sex. Just remember that for every one that gets birth control, there are many who don't.

[LisaL]

39. Exactly. Teenagers that age don't think anything

bad can happen to them. They might worry about getting pregnant, but something like AIDS-forget it. And if they think they can not get pregnant, it's rather obvious they will be having unprotected sex.

[bettyellen]

45. Every Gyno gives you an Aids prevention lecture. Every single one....

and it's been that way for the last 20 years. The fact that you don't see people with Karposi's Sarcoma anymore- that you don't see neighbors, friends or classmates suffer and die anymore- that makes a big difference. Aids is not the immediate concern it was back then. But we don't want to bring back that as a deterrent.

[bettyellen]

42. if they go to a doctor for birth control, they get a lecture on STDs

and how to prevent them. That is standard procedure, has been since the eighties. Condoms are not 100% effective for anything, so people use both methods, or a combination, believe it or not. I sure did, because I "got it".. That's why you need a good relationship with your doctor, follow up testing if needed, regular care if you are going to be sexually active. and not some dumbass parent that is going to just tell you it's ineffective, or thinks giving you a lecture will stop you. Get real. A kid deserves the healthcare if she can talk to her parents or not, the kid needs better info than some people around here have, and you get it from a doctor.

[LisaL]

47. Do kids really listen to lectures? If they did, wouldn't it be

easier to tell them not to have sex, really?

[bettyellen]

50. well it would if it worked. but teenage rebellion is a natural part of

growing up. parents are loathe to give up control, but at a certain point they cannot exert it anymore. you hope you raised the kid well enough that they would come to you, but all parents are not that good, are they? a lot of parents would have no solid info to offer either. at least a kid who sees a doc is trying to do the right thing by themselves. and i think that should never be discouraged.
look at the abstinence programs here- they are a miserable failure too.

[LisaL]

51. I do not want anyone implanting anything into my kid, without me

knowing about it.

[bettyellen]

52. well i'd rather my kid the healthcare if need be.

where do you draw the line? i know 12 is insane, but obviously it is happening. 14? 16? if you wait till 18, that's just irresponsible, if you ask me.

[LisaL]

53. Well, Britain and all their health care services for teens don't

seem to do a darn thing. STDs and HIV are on the rise. I wonder, WTF is that?
If those services were actually working, then STDs and HIV should go down, and they don't-they go up. What do brits spend all this money for? And those diseases are growing resistance to antibiotics to boot.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1059180.stm

[bettyellen]

55. Are you joking? A 10% reduction in Teen pregnancy is HUGE.....

From the Dept of Health, not the Pro-breeding, Anti-Sex Advocate you quoted:

r"In turn, increased provision will have created greater opportunities for raising awareness of STIs, resulting in increased screening and testing.

"This will have contributed to higher rates of STI diagnoses not higher rates of infection."

He added: "Increasing rates of STIs and high levels of teenage pregnancy have complex underlying causes, requiring multifaceted prevention solutions.

"Increasing and improving access to contraception and sexual health advice services is one essential part of the Government's Teenage Pregnancy and Sexual Health Strategies which are aiming to improve young people's sexual health.

"In addition we are also helping young people to resist pressure to have sex, improving sex and relationship education to increase their knowledge and skills, and supporting parents to talk to their children.
"Since 1998, the baseline year for the Strategy, there has been a 10% reduction in the under 18 conception rate."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3594469.stm

and Lizzie, all infections are getting harder to treat, all different kind. That's alarmist anti-sex propaganda. people can have long happy healthy sex lives, and not suffer illness or be damned to hell, believe it or not. :)

[LisaL]

56. Well, this is from the very same website you quoted.

"British teenagers have the worst sexual health in western Europe and the situation is worsening, says a study.

Teen pregnancy
The Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) says figures for England and Wales show that sexual health among teenagers was improving in the early 1990s.

But since the mid-1990s, it has got progressively worse."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/343062.stm
And what about this one?
"Teenagers are failing to heed warnings about under-age sex, leading to soaring numbers of unplanned pregnancies.

New figures show that teenage pregnancy rates rose by 40 per cent in some parts of London last year.

The situation is getting worse in two-thirds of the capital's boroughs, despite dozens of initiatives to tackle the problem."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/womenfamily.html?in_article_id=299691&in_page_id=1799

[bettyellen]

58. wow, i heard it was much worse in spain and italy....

and much better in norway in sweeden. now that i think about it, that's all STD and Reproductive health services.
bwaaah, i can't do any more research tonight. interesting the UK has conflicting studies, but this new initiative started sometime after this study, as a response to it. it's clear more youth are having sex alright, my niece's 13 yr old friends are bragging about the BJ thing now, she is having a hard time believing it herself. i am so glad she didn't ask me about that, but she wants to understand what it is. she totally blames the competative atmosphere, and the kids catch some porn at home unfortunatley too. some kids are risk takers, and some will do anything another kid goads them into. it's kinda sad, huh?
and stingy guys totally suck!
g'nite!
:hi:

[WindRavenX]

17. You fail to realize the consequences of parental notification

Preventing access to BC, or any contraceptive for that matter, will only increase teenage pregnancy and STD rates. If parents are notified that their kids are on BC, and the parents stop their child from receiving BC, that doesn't stop the kid from having sex.
That's the main point that needs to be addressed in this issue-- not the judgement call on whether or not the kids are mature enough for sex, because I think we can agree in most cases they're not. Heck, they're still going through puberty. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not this is going to improve public health. And it will.

This is a very pragmatic, real world solution.

[LisaL]

19. This devise does not stop STDs. In fact, it most likely will

have an opposite effect, because the kids won't be worrying about getting pregnant, resulting in them having unprotected sex. The devise does nothing to prevent STDs, after all.

[WindRavenX]

63. in some cases, this refers to condoms as well

Access to such barrier devices (which DO prevent STDs) are often severely limited.

[silverlib]

20. This is also probably available, but not in our counrty

Not only does it prevent cervicaal cancer, but it protects against many STD's. I completely understand, as a mother or three daughters, that I would love to control my child's actions, but more than that, I want them to have a safe place to go if they don't feel they can come to me.

Don’t Let Politics Interfere in the Fight against Cervical Cancer

by Jonathan Moreno, Sam Berger and Jonas Singer
January 6, 2006

The announcement that scientists at Merck & Co. and GlaxoSmithKline have developed vaccines that drastically reduce or eliminate a major cause of cervical cancer is welcome news. These vaccines, among the most important public health victories since the polio vaccine, appear to be both safe and effective in preventing the most dangerous strains of the cancer-causing and highly infectious skin-to-skin contact disease known as human papilloma virus (HPV). Instead of wholeheartedly applauding this scientific breakthrough, however, some social conservatives have expressed concern that, because the disease is generally spread by sexual activity, widespread administration of the vaccines to teens could be seen as encouraging teenage sexual activity and promiscuity. Rather than admit that some young adults will have sex and seek practical solutions to the associated risks, social conservatives have chosen to hide from the facts, and women pay the ultimate price.

Merck’s new vaccine, Gardasil, is a promising solution to a very serious health threat; cervical cancer affects over 10,000 women in the United States each year, killing more than 3,700 annually. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that over 20,000,000 men and women are carriers of HPV, the primary cause of cervical cancer in the United States, although most people experience no serious side effects and do not even know they are infected. Preliminary lab tests show that both Gardasil and GlaxoSmithKline’s vaccine Cervarix are 100 percent effective in preventing cervical pre-cancers and noninvasive cervical cancers caused by HPV 16 and 18, two strains of the disease that are responsible for 70 percent of all cases of cervical cancer.

Research has shown that to be most effective, the vaccines should be administered to individuals before they become sexually active. The vaccine causes a stronger immune reaction – making it more effective – among adolescents between 10 and 15 years of age, as opposed to young adults between 16 and 23 years of age. To ensure people are vaccinated at the appropriate time, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices at the CDC should recommend that public schools add the HPV vaccines to the list of required vaccinations, which already includes vaccines for diseases like diphtheria, measles, rubella and polio. Of course, it is not always easy to make medical benefits available to all. Therefore the Institute of Medicine (IOM) should undertake a study and recommend the best measures for disseminating the vaccine, including the option of adding it to the mandatory vaccination.schedule for school attendance. Having students vaccinated for HPV before becoming sexually active would greatly reduce the prevalence of HPV and cervical cancer.

Some conservatives have objected to adding an HPV vaccine to the list of required school vaccinations. They argue that mandating the vaccine for students will encourage young people to be more sexually promiscuous. As Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council said, “Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex.” Conservatives also claim that mandating the vaccine infringes on parents’ right to teach their children as they see fit – particularly for parents who favor abstinence-only education. Worries of increased sexual activity among youth are entirely unfounded; there is overwhelming scientific evidence that comprehensive sex education does not increase youth sexual activity, but does decrease the transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Conservatives have once again raised the fear that advocating for anything other than abstinence will increase sexual activity, a ploy previously used to restrict comprehensive sex education in schools and access to over-the-counter emergency contraception.


---snip--- much more at the link

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF...

[bammertheblue]

25. Good god

"As Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council said, “Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex.”

I've had HPV. Yes, I did have premarital sex (as I never plan to get married, premarital is the only kind of sex I'm ever going to have) but that's no one's business but my own. Going through that colposcopy and biopsy was TERRIBLE. I can't imagine that there are people (women, even) in this world who want to prevent young women the opportunity to be free of this disease. How hateful of them.

[Triana]

26. Really. My sentiments exactly.

These religious extremeists are control freaks who don't know how to get priorities straight - they look at women's lives through a prism of control and can't see the dangers or benefits of any of this - and they ARE screwing up women's lives with their twisted dogma.

DAMN THEM TO HELL.

:mad:

[SoCalDem]

59. Yessiree..that tetanus shot I had when our cat chewed my hand

just has me sticking my hand in every cat's mouth I see:)

[Petrushka]

64. LOL . . . Good one! [eom]

[Caoimhe]

66. Why do you hide your profile?

Just asking. It seems like you want to hide something.

[Beaverhausen]

81. Should 13 year olds have to get permission to get an abortion?

Permission from her parents that is. I'm curious if you support this.

[JVS]

23. Don't these injections rely on hormones? What effects could these have...

on a body still going through puberty?

[LisaL]

28. WTF knows? GM corn is so much more scary.

:sarcasm:

[sandnsea]

44. The pill relies on hormones

And some of us have been on them for the bulk of our lives. The real danger is the emotional problems these hormones can cause and parents not understanding why their daughter has turned into a psychopath and nobody thoroughly explaining it to the girls either. Other than that, having met some 13 going on 30 year olds, this is a good idea. There really are some teens that you just can't reason with.

[SKKY]

57. I think it's a bit reactionary in nature, but still a very good idea...

...However, we're very, very close to that point where we have to ask, "How young is too young?"

[KitSileya]

61. I can't help but thinking

that an approach that allows for both lectures and free contraceptives must be the best. I think it must be obvious that most of these girls cannot come from healthy homes if they think having sex at 12 and 13 is ok. However, they are having sex, and that means they have to use protection. Ideally, that should be a condom, but some protection is better than none, and if they're going to a ob/gyn to get BC, they'll be getting the lecture on safe sex as well. They may not be making the best choices, having sex that young, but at least they're making better choices than they could, and I would think they're the ones who at least have thought about what impact having sex will have on their lives. But for every girl that does go and get BC, there must be several others who don't, so it's obvious that the sex ed isn't working as well as it should. The rise in STDs shows this also. But what are the underlaying causes? Is this because of teen culture? Is it because of economic conditions? Has it to do with class? Simply condemning or canonising these girls won't help.

[Caoimhe]

67. It's time for a male birth control shot

don't you think? Either that or boys age 13 or so should have some sperm samples frozen, then get snipped. No more unplanned pregnancies!

[LisaL]

78. Maybe we should just spay and neuter our teens?

Problems solved.

[Caoimhe]

83. Once again... why do you hide your profile?

[Tight_rope]

68. This is too touchy for me...I'm moving on...

[oldcoot]

70. This author of this article is very biased

I would not completely trust the information in this article because the author is biased. The author assumes that "many parents will be alarmed" yet does not actually interview any of these parents nor does he or she interview any representatives from the British National Health Service.

[truthInCO]

71. 12 and 13?

So they are sexualized at 12 and 13, and thanks to the blessing of this drug they can have as much sex as they, or their male partners, desire without fear of pregnancy? Sweet.

So, very dumb question, but are young boys generally fertile at 12? And if not, who's impregnating these little girls so often that you need a standardized injection and/or implant without parental notification?

[LisaL]

74. Chances are, at least some of these men are a lot older than 12-13.

[FooFootheSnoo]

75. Call me old-fashioned

But, I would not want any doctor touching my daughter for any reason (barring a life or limb threatening emergency) without my consent. The way I see it, the child is the parent's responsibility until the child is 18. The parents rights and responsibilities are not invalidated because a 12 year old gets horny. If my daughter were having sex at that age or planning on it, I would want to know. Not so that I could beat her or punish her, but to find out what the heck is going on. I would be very concerned about any child choosing to have sex at 12-13 years old. That's a sixth grader!!
Maybe if a 12 year old shows up at a clinic by herself asking for birth control she should be directed to a social worker instead of a doctor.

[BlueIris]

76. But of course; can't expect "men" to be responsible. Let women destroy

their health with hormones! I feel sorry for these girls, not being informed of the risks, not having whatever feelings they have about the carcinogens doctors continue to stuff in the bodies of women respected, being told this is the only way. Fellas? They're called vasectomies. Because the majority of men won't be mature enough to get them or take responsibility for their own biological potential to create unintended pregnancies the way society expects women to keep doing, despite what it does to our long-term general and sexual health, this is what we've come to. Fuck Patriarchy. Fuck the myth that hormonal contraceptives are the only way and that women shouldering the sole burden for the prevention of pregnancy is the only way. Fuck people who don't respect women, or think damaging a woman's health is acceptable as long as she doesn't get pregnant. I'm all for freedom of choice, but these stories reflect the tragic lack of choice for today's women. I doubt these girls were given enough information to make a valid choice and I doubt the health care providers who manipulated them into this shit give a rat's ass about them. Sad.

[LisaL]

77. Presumably a majority of those fellas would be 12-13 years old

themselves. Do you think boys that age should have vasectomies?
I agree with you on that there got to be a lot of risks on using hormonal implants on these young girls, but demanding 12 year old boys had vasectomies clearly isn't the solution.
And of course they are not responsible at that age.

[progressivebydesign]

79. Guess I'd wanna know what type of parenting the girls got..

If they're having regular sex at 12 and 13. Can you say "unsupervised"?? There's no excuse for a 13 year or even a 15 year old to be having sex regularly. They're children. Where are the parents?

[progressivebydesign]

80. How about STDs?? Those girls are having unprotected sex.

They are children... little girls and they are having unprotected sex, I guarantee it. With a shot or injection they probably see no need to use something to protect them from STDs. This is just so wrong on many levels.. a false sense of security on their part.

[ismnotwasm]

82. Alarmist title.

I wish we had a culture more open to discussion. I wish young women weren't afraid of telling their parents they've had sex, or even that they're thinking about it. But I wish a lot of things

The minute a female is capable of becoming pregnant, she should have the right to free, unrestricted access to birth control and family planning counseling. I actually like so-called "abstinence" teaching in the context that young women and men need to be empowered with their sex, and sexuality choices. Abstinence is a choice. As is sexuality activity. Young people today are receiving so many mixed messages that the resulting confusion is inevitable. Not surprising 12 or 13 year (or younger, in some cases) olds are having sex.
But females are the ones that get pregnant.

As far as parental notification. I remember when my father was notified by my aunt who heard it from my sister of my pregnancy at 17. A little too late don't you think? I had a friend at the time who was pregnant at 15. Her parents were notified by her swelling belly. The daughter that resulted from this pregnancy had a child at 13. She was also notified after the fact.
I knew young women who became homeless, because their parents would not support them through a pregnancy. Want to guess how their lives, and the lives of their children turned out? The fathers either denied paternity or disappeared. (Thank God for DNA these days)
Personally, I would rather see a Norplant that I didn't know about than an actual pregnancy in one of my daughters.

[Caoimhe]

84. AMEN! It certainly is a cycle n/t