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

Mail Online is the most popular online news site in the world. It's not SEO alone that gets their links to the top.

And even the Daily Mail, if you actually read it, says that what's happening is that there are sexual health clinics that are in schools. It's not actually the school that is doing it. It's no different to a clinic on a high street.

"I do not agree with vacinating teens against getting pregnant routinely. Both boys and girls should be actively discouraged from having sex until the age of consent."

Agreed.

I have a medical condition that my consultant believes may have been kickstarted by hormonal contraception. It also tends to a hereditary condition. How on earth could a 13yr-old have enough knowledge and emotional maturity to decide whether or not they want to take that particular risk?

The first link is always Daily Mail - they have amazing SEO (search engine optimisation).

It is not against the law for a 13 year old to have sex, it is against the law to have sex with a 13 year old.

Issues around the safety or advisability of hormonal contraceptives are irrelevant.

13 year olds are entitled to bodily integrity, to make choices about their own sexuality, and to have their privacy about such choices respected.

Would you want a the pro-life father of a pregnant 13 year old informed that his daughter was seeking an abortion?

If not, then liberal parents have no right to know if their daughters are using contraceptives.

I think it's quite likely that what the school is doing is not "implanting girls with hormonal contraceptives".

I think it's far more likely that the school has set up a drop-in doctor's surgery, where pupils can get advice, condoms, contraceptives, whatever, from qualified nurses and/or doctors without having to explain to their parents where they are going.

Do you have a link?

I think that 13 year old girls should be allowed to have contraception injections without their parents' permission PROVIDED the girl knows what she is consenting to. The thirteen year old needs to be the one who has instigated the treatment not the school. I have no objections in the school nurse facilating contraception for under 18s.

I do not agree with vacinating teens against getting pregnant routinely. Both boys and girls should be actively discouraged from having sex until the age of consent.

I think there are circumstances where hormonal contraception can help vunerable thirteen year olds. Ie. a thirteen year old with learning difficulties in care or a girl who is known to be promiscous. It is an ethical minefield.

But doing this is not the way to tackle the problem.

I would like to know what exactly is the this that is being done before saying that.

I forgot to say - I wonder how many 13 year olds are fully au fait with their medical records, any allergies, bad reactions to drugs etc? Unless the school is getting hold of the child's medical records, how can they be sure that they are not going to give the girl something she will react badly to? And since the article I read says that the girls' doctors didn't know they were having the implants either, I doubt they had the full medical records - so the school was taking a huge risk.

I think that there should be a more thoughtful competence-to-consent-to-sex rather than a strict age limit.

Cutting down on teenage pregnancies must also be a feminist issue, imo. Having a baby when you are still a child yourself has huge implications and knock on effects - and it is the girl who bears the brunt of these, whilst the boy can waltz off with his life unchanged.

But doing this is not the way to tackle the problem. I do believe that the school was doing this to protect the girls from unwanted pregnancies, not to get them ready for boys to fuck them, but whilst it will protect the girls from getting pregnant, it will not protect them from sexually transmitted diseases, or from the hurt and emotional damage that can result from children having sexual relationships for which they are not emotionally ready. This school is actually risking giving these girls a false sense of security, and could also be seen to be condoning teenage sex, which I think is a bad thing.

I would far rather see all teenagers being taught about the emotional side of relationships, and about protecting themselves from pregnancy and disease. I worry that some girls have low self esteem, and think that the only thing that makes them popular is being popular with boys - and that they have to give them sex to maintain that popularity. Is this because there are teenagers who honestly believe that they have no other abilities/skills/talents, because that's what the education system has made them believe? Do some girls want a baby because a baby will love them unconditionally, and because then they will have an adult role? These are things that, if true, can and should be tackled by parents, society and schools. Every child has a talent, and education should be finding that talent, nuturing it, and making the child feel valuable and valued so that they have got more in their lives than just casual sex.

And some boys need to be taught that girls aren't just there for their sexual gratification, to be used and discarded. I believe that most boys aren't like this, but some are, and I would have no problem with all the boys being taught this (it would be superfluous in many cases including my dses, but better that than some boys not getting told). All teenagers should have to learn about the responsibilities of parenthood too - in a practical way that brings home how much hard work it is, how expensive it is, and how it changes your life.

I think 13 year olds have an absolute right to make this choice without their parents being informed.

It is a feminist issue - young women's right to make their own, private decisions about contraception, sex and termination.

Do you have a link to what you are talking about? At the very least it will be medical professionals who are prescribing and administering long-term contraceptives, not "that school".

Gillick competence.

"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 terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed."

13 year olds are allowed to give or withhold consent for medical things without parental knowledge or consent if they are deemed to be mature enough to understand what they are doing. This is assessed on a case-by-case basis for each individual 13 year old. To say "13 is far too young" assumes that all 13 year olds are the same, which is clearly not the case.

I think two things - surely the school have sent home thorough information regarding side effects or possible side effects?

Also consent is a major, major issue. Age 13 is far far too young for any school nurse, teacher or anyone in an outside agency to administer drugs to without a parental consent. Sorry, but I call it abuse. The vast majority of 13 year old girls are not wanting to have sex. Even if some might be they aren't mature emotionally to cope with it all, and need advice beforehand, preferrably from a parent. I think it's scandalous. Should be only administered with 100percent co-operation from parents with full knowledge of side effects. I doubt there'd be many takers though.