To think 13 is too young to go on the pill

[toni76]

A report says girls as young as 13 should get the pill without a prescription. I just think 13 is sooo young (have two little girls). AIBU to think there must be a better way to stop 13 year olds getting pregnant?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17847069

Statistics of STI in the UK show that STIs are on the increase particularly among young people. Since 1999 cases of chlamydia have doubled. The number of new diagnoses of HIV has doubled since 1999.

My fear is that an emphasis on the pill will encourage young men to think they can dispense with the condom and young girls won't care because at least they can't get pregnant.

I think there are far worse things than getting pregnant, such as contracting HIV. How horrible would it be if the new playground conversation was who was off school because of HIV?

These are not the solutions to our problems. Despite what you think of the pill versus condoms, we should be demanding that the government tackle these bigger issues instead of trying to appease us by making little concessions.

Who is looking after those children???? Giving them a pill to stop them getting pregnant is a sticking plaster approach which does not protect them from physical or emtional harm. We need to be saying that behaviour is unacceptable and abusive and I agree with the poster who said that the benefit / NHS system supports this culture.

so can we give the boys something hormonal to lower their testosterone?

Sti remains something that needs more attention, we still have schools refusing to have the team in who do a great presentation and free non intrusive testing for all. The rates are rising for the young and the old(!).

I already have had the same stories from some of their parents who I knew in their youth. There is possibly more awareness now of what goes on? Some more extreme and damaging behaviour too but better support sometimes. If the older generations had benefitted from better education in the fullest sense and had their children through choice having benefitted from better access to contraception maybe it would be better now.

Many but by no means all of the ones I work with are looked after children, they are the most vulnerable.

All boys? That would be popular.

Protecting children should be at the top of the list. I'm saddened that the system thinks protecting against pregnancy is the most it can do. Children should be protected against neglect and abuse. I agree with splashing that most children who are having sex at this tender age are probably the most vulnerable children who are in need of protection the most, and not just against pregnancy. This system is letting them down badly.

Stealth - hormones shouldn't be given out to adolscent children no matter what the gender, without a very good reason.

Yes cause girls never want to have sex under age

That's why we've not said all zombie, but most. There are always exceptions. But there is a big difference between a 13yo and a 15yo.

Should we forget the majority of kids who are vulnerable and in need of help because a minority are fine with it?

Just qualifying this as saying, my comment was not 100% serious
But no, not all boys, just sexially active ones.
And yes, girls want to have sex. If she does, and the boy she wants to have sex with is testerone-lowered, he can stop that for as long as the both want to

There needs to be more knowledge about how contraception works, across all generations.

If I claimed in a post that I coouldn't use any kind of hormonal contraception for medical reasons, multiple people would suggest I tried the Mirena coil. There seems to be a widespread perception that the mirena is non hormonal. I think it's been confused with the old copper coils. A couple of people would suggest the implant, as well.

Splashing "I have no wish to hear young girls talk about their sex lives, their group sex, sex with boyfriend's mates, oral sex for free cab rides, anal sex etc but this is a reality for some of girls. I do see girls reject some of this, I see them grow into understanding, I see others pimp for their boyfriends and move into prostitution. Most of these girls could never get their partners to use condoms but they can take a decision that improves their life and health outcomes by using contraception to prevent pregnancy."

I see giving the pill out without adequate care as reinforcing those messages and showing that we don't care.

tbh I think some of you have no idea of the reality for some young girls. It is fine where girls, and boys, have parents who care and are willing to talk to them about stuff like this. But my 14 year old bf ended up pregnant, with a baby at 15 because people like some on here frankly live in cloud cuckoo land (sorry I am angry).

Yes in an ideal world all of what you say should happen. Some girls don't live in that ideal world. I would rather they don't have babies very very young and actually get the chance to grow into an adult with greater life chances.

Am not aware it is dispensed without adequate care.

What message of care does a young teen get from going through pregnancy and abortion or pregnancy and birth? The outcomes for mother and baby in pure health terms are more likely to be poor, they are less likely to access education, trainig or work. They are more likely to be in abusive relationships, to have children taken into care and to be at risk of self harm and suicide. Their children are more likely to have attachment disorders...

Stealth - that implies that without hormone lowering pills, boys cannot help themselves which is not what you meant I'm sure.

TheBigJessie - I started a thread recently asking for contraception advice as I too, cannot take hormonal contraception. A few posters seriously suggested the mirena coil. Not knowing much about it I started another thread where I discovered that many people suffered the same depressive side effects that ruined my life so much whilst I was on the pill.

If adults find contraception complex, what hope is there for young kids who are emotionally immature in the first place?

The 13 yo figure is scaremongering: that is the absolute lower limit. There were only 4 under 16s which used this service in the pilot.

Also there is only so much the government can do about teenage sexuality, that is really the parents' responsibility. Making it safer is the best the government can do. Whilst relationships with big age/power gaps do need to continue to be illeagal and the adult party should be prosecuted, teenagers do explore their sexuality, often under the age of consent. The limit of 16 is to protect teenagers from adults who would take advantage, not to criminalise 15 year olds. This is much harder to judge moral "rightness" on.

Also, if you are a teenager, have to go to school and be accountable to your parents it is very difficult to access the MAP in a hurry. Not to mention that it is less effective than the pill and has nastier side effects. Better to be using condoms and on the pill "in case" then to risk an accident and not be able to access emergency contraception.

zombie, ditto with my bf. And I too want children to get the chance to grow up without sexual diseases that can render them infertile, without HIV which can kill, without the pressure to have sex too young.

It seems like an easy solution to make the pill available to under 16s over the counter. But it does not solve the problem. No one here is in cloud cuckoo land, we are just debating whether it is right for a government to spend more time and resources on the symptoms of the problem rather than tackle the issue head on.

If the government said they were doing this and also implementing regulations on porn, giving better sex ed in schools and clamping down on companies who sell sexualised products and clothes to children then I'd be all for it. But they're not.

And don't forget that the government have already cut funding resulting in the closure of many youth centres and places of refuge for young people and making access to other vital services, difficult.

I'm angry too, but for different reasons.

No I didn't rhubarb :) but obviously removing the desire from boys who are sexually active and requesting a way to avoid pregnancy and stis would reduce the number of sexually active boys.

Just to be clear - i don't think this should happen. I see it as similar to allowing underage girls to flood their bodies with hormones to avoid pregnancy.

Okay sorry Rhubarb, I do agree

Fair point Stealth.

No worries zombie, I think we all generally agree that this ain't the solution by any means. Just a shame we don't make the policies eh?

Ivana, you can get condoms free of charge (I'm sure I will be given more places) at family planning clinics and at GP surgeries. Pharmacies sell them and they cost from a tenner to around £20 I think?

You don't need to leave any details.

For under 16s I don't think pharmacies are allowed to sell condoms (wouldn't that be an irony for a pharmacy to give a girl free hormonal pills but refuse to serve her condoms because she's under age!!!!) but I think they can still get them from FPC and GPs.

C card scheme requires details but I dong tthink you're refused condoms if you don't give your details