That school that is implanting girls with hormonal contraception without their parents knowing...

Well the more I read the worse it gets!

The school is just the venue, the service is provided by the NHS. I have no interest in forcing any young person into having a hormonal contraceptive I deem most appropriate for them, I give them information and talk them through their choices and they choose.

If they can't understand the information given then they won't be deemed frazier competent. A young person attending for this service would be fully informed about the side effects etc. The documentation is very comprehensive as the nurse/doctor has to be able to demonstrate why they deemed that young person competent etc.

Nurses work with young people around delaying sexual activity and increasing self esteem. I am so sad to read some of the comments on this thread, as a nurse I only ever have the young persons best interests in mind.

Maybe there are too many people reading the Daily Mail

Have to ponder this a bit more, but it seems that there has been a breakthrough as far as male contraception is concerned In fact, it was discovered 40 years ago but not pursued

Make males infertile until they are, what, 16? Whilst there is still the STI issue to contend with, but this sounds like a great idea, doesn't it? Much better than the alternative. Will be interesting to see the popular reaction to a less risky male equivalent to what society deems OK for young women.

Another one who didn't get on with microgynon but didn't know it until after I came off it. I was actually put on the pill at 11 because I was getting periods every 2 weeks, but I didn't know I was until I worked it out for myself in my 20s.

BasilRathbone I have just started to read this thread and I stopped after seeing your comment about 'nitty nora types' ... I'm a school nurse and I am insulted at that description

Just to educate you, these 'nitty nora types' are registered nurses with additional skills, knowledge and experience in the administration of contraception. These young people are not just injected with contraception without a full assessment of their health and capacity to give 'informed' consent.

The circumstances around the reasons they are requesting contraception is fully explored I and ensure they are fully aware of the law. I also encourage them to discuss their consultation with me with their parents, however if they are deemed to be competent then they are entitled to confidential advice and treatment. Nurses are trained in the recognition of sexual exploitation and would make appropriate referrals if required.

Any young person from the age of 13 years old can consent to treatment but not refuse treatment according to the law. This means they can consent to immunisations etc

I am now off to read the thread in full

I disagree with the claim that condoms are side effect free. If twenty teenage couples use condoms as contraception for a year then you'll get an average of three pregnancies at the end of it, which counts as a major side effect in my book. If the same twenty couples use the implant then you'd expect zero pgs.
But of course the STD risk is higher in the implant group (although condoms don't protect well at all against HPV and they're not perfect against other STDs). It's not even restricted to PIV sex, having just seen the new oral HPV cancer statistics.
I don't know what the answer is, but I would start by heavily publicising the fact that most people are still virgins on their sixteenth birthday, and high proportions remain that way until they are 18.

Why are we so keen to prevent pregnancies and yet not so keen to prevent STDs and educating boys about their role in all of this.

Many STIs can affect a woman's fertility and of course HIV is still a problem. These are problems that can stay with a woman for ever. Pregnancy does have choices at least, but unless caught early, an STI is a permanent problem.

And of course it just tells boys that hey, contraception is the girls problem and so there's no need for them to carry a condom around, right?

I don't really think that preventing unwanted pregnancies is papering over cracks. Failure to engage with issues like this immediately and practically damages the lives of many if these girls. There is ongoing harm to their children in many cases. It disproportionately disadvantages girls who come from poorer backgrounds.

Their lives shouldn't be blighted with early and unwanted pregnancy and the great problems that can bring whilst we theorise about social and cultural change. Change that can, in any case happen along side contraception that doesn't compel anyone to have sex.

I want to be ok with this but it doesn't seem right. It's such a massive leap from primary school where my daughter is not even allowed to apply a lipsalve to her own lips without a letter from the dr so insistent are they on parental permission to suddenly at thirteen they can have minor surgery and be made ready to embark on sexual activity without any discussion at all.

I see what they are trying to achieve but I agree with the OP - they wouldn't do this to boys (and haven't).

14 year old girls have sex.

And are daft as they are only 14, therefore they will probably be having unsafe sex at the very least occasionally

We do not get to decide an appropriate day/age/time when our DD's will start having/continue to have sex. They do.

If they are savvy enough to want an implant they should be able to get one.

So a mature woman is one who doesn't have sex at all unless she is prepared to have a child, is that what you're saying?

No. That is not what I said. I was talking about a 14 year old. A mature 14 year old is one who 1) understands that no contraceptive is perfect 2) therefore she has a small risk of pregnancy 3) therefore there is risk she could be faced with a child or an abortion 4) therefore she could be facing an interruption to her education which may damage her prospects in life and ability to earn her own living and be independent 5) therefore she may have to crawl back to Mum and Dad for help if she has been one of those teenagers who has had contraception secretly (not very mature).

Sposh - yes we all know about raging hormones. I do remember. But it doesn't mean you have to give in to them right away. I don't think that being a victim to rampaging oestrogen is a sign of maturity at all. Just because someone is physically mature does not mean they are emotionally mature.

Maybe I am showing my age . I am deffo not one of the "I want it so therefore I must have it now" generation whether it's the latest trainers, an Iphone or sex.

I concede therefore that I am clearly an old fart!

TheRhubarb, I had no idea about depression and microgynon but you can add me to your list of women who had both.

There's also a risk of HPV related cancers (if we are talking risk factors). Both pregnancy and the Pill have the added complications of death too. The pill lowers libido, can cause headaches, and put extra weight on all of which can lead to depression and/or eating disorders. But so long as the boys get their shagging practise in we'll all ignore it.

Boys should be sterilised at the onset of puberty, their sperm stored and they should also be vaccinated for HPV. They should be instructed at all times to use a condom and that women's sexuality is a much more pleasurable experience for the woman than it is men.

Bring back dry humping I say and put the focus on pleasure.

Meh

What is more dangerous to a young girls health

Pregnancy or an Implant?

Teenage girls WILL have sex whether or not we all agree about it. Far better they are not at risk of becoming pregnant (and use condoms too).

I agree with Basil, especially the would they inject boys with such alacrity. Women are not seen as human beings but are being treated like cattle.

It's disgusting and for once, though I did shout hypocrite several times, I agreed with Nadine Dorries on radion 4 this morning.

Broader social change might be a goal but if 'the cracks aren't papered over' then the result leaves teens facing pregnancy and abortion when they may well have chosen not too.

I hardly think we should be aiming to punish this group by denying them access to a full range of contraception. I think we should aim to allow them to protect themselves from pregnancy or the alternative continues the historic punitive approach to sexually active or pregnant young women.

if a teen isn't mature enough to wear a coat, never mind a condom, despite the clear consequences of not doing so, they are not mature enough to engage in sexual relationships. That's the point of the age of consent, imperfect instrument as it is.
Long term contraception is only papering over the cracks.

yes I know a lot will do it anyway, but it's hardly what we should be aiming for.

Its bad enough getting a teen to wear a coat yet alone a condom. Teens forget everything and I think a long term contraception injection will prevent them getting pregnant.

If you want your teen to tell you whats going on with their health then the TWO of you need to work at your relationship.

Condoms are still pushed, massively as belt and braces. They aren't as effective contraception though especially if used carelessly without spermicide, they are quite likely to leave a busily sexually active teen pregnant. Also lots of partners will refuse to use them or pretend to use them.

Actually teens even when drinking heavily, using drugs, sharing partners often decline any hormonally related contraceptive because they don't like to put 'chemicals' in their body. The number of 13 year olds on implants will be tiny, the number of 16 year olds will still be pretty low.

Agreed Tunip.

I do think there's weird double standard regarding sex in society.
On the one hand it's just another function, a bit of fun, why not, it's no big deal. (This is a down grade from the sixties idea of it's a beautiful, life affirming thing that shouldn't be shrouded in shame).

OTOH the older view remains - it's so serious, a person cannot possibly be expected to do without it, having sex outside your relationship is the worst thing you could do.

So which is it? Whatever suits, apparently. I pity young teens trying to develop their own stance on it with these contradictory messages being shoved at them simultaneously.

I know of many girls who have suffered severe depression after teenage pregnancy and/ or abortion. Talking with the girls I work with most would have preferred an implant to the alternatives they experienced. Their world view doesn't allow that sex before 16 is wrong for them or their partners. I can't think of a single criminal prosecution or even warning against any of their partners regardless of age gap. I think theory and practice are very different on this point.

As a point of principle competence is all important, parental input irrelevant unless sought. Around this though care should be good, I have sat and listened as clinics have shared full info re contraceptive choices and talked about wider issues with girls younger than 16. Really I believe that most sexually active 13 year olds are vulnerable, I can't see any situation where pregnancy helps them. In the absence of being able to change their wider situation at least an implant, if they want one, helps with avoiding pregnancy or abortion.

I would have signed up in a flash as a teen, I do remember those strong urges and what fun I had gratifying them. I remember too how busy I was trying not to get pregnant and how I failed on this point...

I do find it very bizarre, this move from medics pushing condoms as they did when I was a teen in the 80s to pushing hormonal implants which seem to be worse for the women in so many ways.

Do they not think the recent rise in STDs (the comeback of syphilis, gonorrhoea etc) has anything to do with it?

I don't know.
Certainly it's her body, her right etc.

But I don't know of any 13 year old who has the emotional maturity to deal with the consequences of sex. The consequences are not just pregnancy, though that's all anybody seems to see, never mind the emotions etc. Once the pregnancy problem is sorted, a lot of teens -and adults - will think that's it then, there's no reason not to.

I suspect it won't help the kind of girls who need help the most, the vulnerable ones who seek validation from sexual encounters.
The girls with the loving boyfriends would be more likely to insist on condoms - or feel better able to slow down the rate of experimentation to what they are comfortable with (guessing that few well adjusted are ready for full sex at 13), the girls with the close mothers will have a range of options and guidance.