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

Pharmacies are allowed to sell condoms to under 16s. They can refuse to sell them (for moral reasons for example), but in practise that very rarely happens. Certainly any pharmacy which is willing to dispense the pill/MAP will sell condoms to the same individuals.

And most teenagers would only buy a small box, so that's £3-4 I think? They are also for sale in public toilets, corner shops etc. Very easy to get hold of really.

Sorry MrsHoarder I stand corrected.

Ivana, not having got any free condoms for a long time I don't remember the process or what type they were, but they certainly ain't gonna be ribbed, glow in the dark or featherlight are they?

And yes, it's probably easier for a girl to be put on the pill than it is for the poor poor lad to overcome his embarrassment and buy condoms from the shop.

I've never seen them in public loos. Plenty of chewable toothbrushes (?) but I've only seen condoms in pub toilets.

Stealth - I do understand your point now about hormones for boys. You are right, people would be up in arms about this. But we do live in a sexist and patriarchial society and I think sometimes we have to be pragmatic about this.

The thing that worries me about handing out the pill (I am presuming they mean microgynon as a default) to teenagers without a proper prescription is that it can provoke an incredibly bad reaction. I had a stroke (well, stroke-like event called a TMI, vaguely appropriately) when I was 17 because I was taking the pill when I really shouldn't have been. I had no idea that there was a history of fatal female strokes in my family and didn't really get that it was actually dangerous to take the pill because of that. There are a lot of side effects to the pill, including loss of libido and depression that I think are quite worrying if we begin to give it to young women who are not being monitored by a doctor while taking it- previously you had to see your GP at least once every three months to carry on taking it.

Equally (and knowing that I did this when I was theoretically rather more grown up) girls will carry on taking it, chaining packets, rather than having a period because periods are grim and most of us would rather avoid them but that's really not healthy at all. If it's prescribed then it becomes obvious if they need the prescription before the date they should every time but if they're getting it from a pharmacy it may well not show. Adults do it loads of course but it does feel quite wrong to let teenagers' whose bodies are still developing fall into this kind of habit before they know how to recognise when something is wrong. Before my TMI I'd been having warning symptoms but had absolutely no idea what they were because even at 17 my body was doing such odd things on a regular basis that I took it for granted that I'd feel weird.

I think the issue should stop being about sex -teenagers will or won't and the correlation of oral contraception to sexual activity isn't really there- and be more about the (largely unknown) health risks presented by pubescent people taking hormones to alter the way their body works. No one would agree with chemically castrating teenage boys without prescription, even if it might mean that they got less bad acne or their mood swings were more controlled.

I am really sorry if this has already been asked and answered, but I remember being told that you really shouldn't be on the pill for more than 10 years.

Has this advice changed?

If not, then potentially some girls are going to have "been on the pill too long" at 23.

There are many reasons for taking the pill. I stupidly, waited to get my DM's OK to go on the pill for cripplingly bad period pain - that had ruined some CGSE exams for me - until I was sitting my A-Levels. She went BSM and accused me of shagging anything that moves...bitch. Anyway, I'd have love to have gone on the pill on the quiet, but my DM KNOWS EVERYONE so was very paranoid that someone would see me at some point. The Mummia is everywhere...

Even if it IS for stopping unwanted pregnancy, then I'm all for it. Saying "if they're old enough to have sex...blah blah blah" is childish. The whole point of there being an age of consent is that children are not capable of making this judgment and if they are having sex, should still be considered emotionally immature to have a child (though I do recognise this varies child to child). Anything to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and to prevent children having to make the decision to abort or not is all good for me. Teenagers also have the right to explore their bodies, and as much as we dislike it, some times this will lead to sex.

Yes, we do need to be more open when talking to children about sex. It doesn't make them grow up faster, it doesn't warp them. The thought that talking about it makes children want to do it is stupid (same with the cervical cancer vaccine debate, don't be stupid). If it's handled properly then there's absolutely no reason why this should be the case. It starts young, not partonising children by calling vaginas 'pet names' like "front bottoms"...my vagina/fanny/yoni is NOT my ass hole and anyone that thinks it is needs therapy. And by leading by example being in a respectful relationship (whether parents are together or not). No wonders many kids grow up thinking their bodies are "wrong" if grown adults can't bring themselves to be honest about it them. As a part of this, the condom message should be pushed. It is safest form of "safe sex".

Many children feel exceedingly uncomfy going to a formalised setting for 'help'. Being able to seek advice and help in non-threatening places such as shops makes sense. I'd be happier if I knew the child was being monitored by a GP, and hopefully the GP will have to be informed, but I don't know this for sure. The fact that children don't feel they can go to a GP/GUM clinic should be a source of shame to the NHS. Reaching out to children in whatever way they can should be the aim.

Oh, and as for statistics, be aware, they are JUST NUMBERS. Mostly correlations NOT cause and effect. Just because more cases are being detected is doesn't follow that there are more cases. It could be teenagers are more savvi and are getting tested sooner - and good on them!

My penneth...

Hi folks, sorry I'm not brave enough to read through the entire 16 pages of this thread so could be repeating something others have said.

Trying to control young women's fertility rather than tackle wider issues, including businesses trying to force an ever younger population to buy stuff they don't need through adverts that promote sexually explicit behaviour, is certainly wrong and short-termist.

As others have said, the pill won't stop the spread of STIs. In fact, more girls going on the pill will probably result in more STIs.

Furthermore, tampering with a system that regulates the work of your entire body (and that's essentially what hormones do) can be dangerous in adults, no mind pubescent girls whose reproductive system is not well formed yet. I haven't seen much robust research into the way early (and particularly long-term) use of the pill affects women's fertility in the long run. If anyone has, please point me to it.

There is no ONE pill, there are many different pills based on different synthetic hormones, each of those has a very different effect. The pill MUST be carefully selected to match the hormonal levels of every individual woman. Its use MUST then be monitored to make sure that it's not causing more harm than good, and if it is, alternatives must be tried or the pill route abandoned. This is the job for a doctor, not a pharmacist. However, most GPs don't really bother with that. So an adult woman who's getting headaches, high blood pressure, spots, eczema, sporadic bleeding, or any other side effects would probably go to her GP and ask for an alternative, or just stop taking the pill. What would a young girl do, who got it without any medical supervision in the first place? Anyone's guess.

And what if she misses a pill or two? She could still get pregnant. And may not know she is until it's too late. And then may have to have a traumatic termination anyway, due to the effects of the pill on the foetus.

A better way to limit unwanted pregnancies in young girls is a range of CONFIDENTIAL services, including councelling, sexual health clinics, free condoms (dispensers in schools, clubs, etc), perhaps outright propaganda of those services that are already available.

There definately has to be some peer support, like teenage mums and dads, or girls and lads who've contracted STIs, had to go through termonations, etc. and who are ready to talk about it doing talks at schools, youth clubs, etc. EVERY schools should endeavour to get someone like that in to talk to their students, every year. But of course

I think everyone has said that talking about sex and parental responsibility is a good thing Oeisha.

What we are saying, is that giving contraception to children is NOT the sole answer to the problem of children having sex at a younger age. And as other people have testified to, the pill can cause health problems.

Yes young people could be getting savvy, but there is no difference about when STIs are reported, the stats measure the number of cases and if you had an STI, trust me you would have to get treatment sooner or later. So the stats would not go up just because people were getting tested earlier.

STI's are rising because people are forgetting the safe sex message started at the time of HIV and having sex willy nilly ]. It's difficult to ignore some STI symptoms experience emoticon

sorry DS messing with my keyboard!

I was gonna say, but of course it's CHEAPER to just put everyone on the pill. It's not about health. It's not about trying to help vulnerable youngsters. It's all about MONEY. Young mums on benefits costing Cameron too much, eh?

I also thing Facebook and other SN sites got to face the game too. They could do so much to influence people's behaviour. They could have adverts and interviews with people who know what it's like getting pregnant early, contracting an STI, damaging one's health, trying to resist a BF who won't wear a condom, etc.

A local school apparently has a "shag bus" where youngsters can go to get this type of support. More "shag buses" I say!!!!

True onanotherone, the safe sex message is not being aimed at both boys and girls these days.

Anyway, just so that I can stop repeating my posts and allow others to have their say, I'm going to concentrate on finishing work now and tidying up ready for the weekend.

ohanotherone,
unfortunately many STIs (eg ureaplasmosis, mycoplasmosis, chlamidiosis among others) can be asymptomatic for a long long time, or even present no symptoms at all, ever. And then, at the age of 30 something, those men and women will be wondering why they can't conceive.

Oh, and do I even need to mention that not every STI can be tested for by peeing in a pot and dropping it in with a scarf over your face. I doubt the NHS even offers testing for every STI going, just the most common ones.

I'm pretty sure that this scheme is aimed at older teens but (16+) with the possibility of using it younger teens if needed - like the current MAP schemes. I would guess that the pharmacies would have a similar (but probably more in depth) consultation as well with BP and weight monitoring, big list of questions etc.

For those asking about MAP availability to under 16s - some community pharmacies do offer a free MAP service, some with a minimum/maximum age limit and some without, depending on the needs of the area. In the area where I work there is a requirement to signpost under 16s to the local Brook clinic, offer free condoms (from a selection of types), offer a free chlamydia test and have an in depth conversation about future contraceptive choices. For those aged 14 or under there is also a requirement that a notification is sent to social services. Records of those accessing the service are kept as well. I would hope that any pharmacy pill service would be run according to similar (preferably stricter) rules.

On the the health record side - this is the part that would worry me, whether people would try to give the 'correct' answer to questions just to get the pill with no way to check up if the answers were actually true. However, there is a big move to integrating health records and allowing pharmacies limited access which would make it less risky.

TheRhubarb: there is nothing stopping the young women going and buying condoms instead. Its far less embarrassing than all the questions you get asked to go on the pill.

chemiseblair, there are concerns over a number of hormonal contraceptives, particularly drospirenon-based ones (Yasmin for example) that they cause blood clotting leading to strokes, paralyses and deaths. However pharmaceutical giants that manufacture them will not discontinue them until the money paid out in litigation will be more than the profits they get from those drugs. When I pointed that out to my GP, she said, well we don't prescribe them to people with a history of blood clotting problems. But as your story shows, you don't always know whether there's a history or not! And also, there may not be a family history. In every history there's always a first.
My point is, if you're 13 (14, 15, 25, 30) you may not have lived long enough for that first episode of blood clotting to occur. And then - voila! - stroke and you're dead. Brilliant.

Turquoise I totally agree. I find it very worrying for women's health worldwide that the pill is so readily disbursed and continued despite there being so many associated health risks. You get women who wouldn't eat red meat because of a supposed cancer risk that is a fairly poor correlator happily sucking down a tab of cheaply synthesised hormones thrice daily. I hate rolling out the word 'patriarchy' but I can never believe that women champion these things.

I think a lot of people think of the pill as some sort of magic vitamin that makes everything about periods/hormones/sexual function easier. It is not.

Most rational people do think that being honest with children is the way forward. But I do know many parents who are themselves religiously/tranditionally repressed and won't even let their children attend sex-ed classes because it will make them "want" sex. Bloody daft. The same with "pet names" - drives me mental.

Most of the online stuff people are suggesting ins already there.

Yes, the pill can have seriousx side effects - I for one am high-risk and am not allowed synethetic oestrogens, so maye they should be encouraging implants more, but those come with risks too. BUT it is about educated risk assessment for the HCP.

Oh, I'm with you 100% Turquoise. I was responding to the poster who said that STI's aren't on the increase just that people tend to report them more. I think that is naive. I think they are on the increase because people are spreading them through sex.

Anyone can say things to doctors or pharmacists to get what they want. I went on the pill cos hubby decided for me it was the best possible contraception. I got depressed. I tried a different pill. I got more depressed. I got suicidal. The doctors at check-up time, which I don't remember being very often would ask how I was doing, I would say fine cos I felt both pressured to continue on the pill but also because at the time I genuinely was unable to admit that I was as depressed as I was. Even though I felt like ending my life I still didn't tell the doctor. I eventually owned up to my husband that I really had had enough of being on the pill (maximum of 2 years). I felt depressed for more than a year after coming off the pill. It was only a couple of years later after baby number two that I realised that I had been postnatally depressed (and always said I was fine to the health visitor) too!

The reality is that often we have problems and simply can't see them and are unable to admit to them. How good are doctors/pharmacists at recognising what people can't see and tell them themselves???

ohanotherone apologies I only read the 1st and the last page of this thread