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

Sorry, just to add that if you combine the history of depression and the pill with vulnerable young girls, then you have a huge problem. Depression amongst young people is already a major concern, I wonder if any studies have been done on the contraceptive pill's role in those increasing stats amongst young girls?

(As an aside I did actually discover that I had written "effective condoms" in one of my articles instead of "effective controls". Good job I checked eh?)

No worries. I think some of the posters on here who think this is a good idea are underestimating the risks of STI's and HIV.

If you do not think that HIV is an issue for young girls....it's worth reading this page. The main point is that HIV is on the rise and whereas once it was mainly drug users and gay men who contracted it, heterosexuals are now contracting HIV at a much higher ratio than before. Many of them don't know they have HIV!

www.avert.org/aids-uk.htm

nobody is advocating sole use of the pill that i can see, everyone agrees that condoms should be use as well for sti purposes, in reality though the pill is already available to those under 16 and has been for a long time from their gp

Interesting thought Rhubarb. Completely anecdotal, I know, but when a friend of mine who had been on the pill from an early age came off of when she was engaged, it completely changed her personality (to the point they ended up breaking it off, I worry about what would have happened if she had come off after the wedding rather than before). Her personality brightened and emboldened in every way.

Latte, so do you think that the same proportion of young women on the pill are going to want to use condoms or insist on using them in the face of resistance and win that argument as teenagers their age who are not on the pill?
My thought would be that being on the pill will be "good enough" for a fair amount, and another proportion will be talked into it by their boyfriends, and feel unable to insist because they're effectively saying they think he's diseased.

Which is why I think condoms should be the way forward.

Teen pregnancy might drop but what about sexually transmitted diseases? What about cervical cancer?

I think there is some evidence to say that women on the pill are more likely to fancy different men than when they are off the pill. I heard it on Radio 4 so can't post a link! Perhaps women are more easy to control when on the pill!

I may be naive but I really don't understand the cold grim politics of it. If we just descend to the level of those calculator-for-a-head bar stewards who came up with the idea. HOW on earth can it be CHEAPER to dispense the pill without prescription to anyone and then dealing with the cost of treating STIs, depressions, fertility problems, complicated pregnancies that happened after one missed a pill, than dispensing free condoms? Yeah I assume since the pill isn't prescribed the girls who buy it would be paying for it, so in the very short run the government spends nothing while possibly having to pay benefits to fewer new teenage mums. OK. But some of the consequences, esp the STIs and HIV, would likely begin to surface in the next 3-5 years - is everyone in this government so self-defeatist they don't think they could POSSIBLY ever get re-elected and have to deal with all this mess later? Is that it?

I can't answer your question as such, but in general, yes, governments tend to go for short term measures over long term ones. Look how often the nhs is restructured. In fact can you even call it that any more, its been in a permanent state of restructure for the last decade IME. Change is the status quo

Conspiracy Theory this way: some people would actually consider it a good thing, if fertility problems were rife among a certain socio-economic group...

Do you mean you tbj, in which case ill hide you now, or not?
As conspiracy theories go I'd be inclined to at least slightly worry.
Btw is your name a toy story refeeence?

No, not me. I don't think people deserve infertility for being either uneducated in their youth, naïve twits, or even outright noodleheads. (I reserve the right to clobber a small minority over the head with a naice stone-baked baguette from Waitrose, bought with their money.)

But some people are nastier than me.

(Not Toy Story ref. Someone said, "oh you big southern jessie" at one point in my life, and I thought it was quite apt.)

The pill isn't being compared to condoms, expense wise. The pill is being compared to the cost of supporting single mothers and their babies/children. Single mothers are the bogeywomen of the Tories and Tory voters, responsible for breeding rioters and hooligans, jail fillers and trouble makers.

Ach, 21st century Britain. If you trust your boyfriend, and it turns out that like billions of men and women before you, you've fallen in love with a selfish prat, you could end up never being able to have children.

Smash up a restaurant, and you could end up in government!

People, PLEASE READ what I wrote. I'm JUST SAYING be aware of stats. I have no doubt the STIs are on the increase, but I don't think it's JUST teenagers. PLUS, a correlation is NOT cause and effect. Just because there are more cases reported IT DOES NOT mean there are thus more cases within the populous, it's just a good indicator. I'm just warning people that statistics just aren't as clear as they appear sometimes! It is NOT naive to quesiton statistics thrust at you.

Plus, just because HIV/STIs are on the increase, it doesn't mean we should prevent teenagers from accessing hormonal therapies to prevent pregnancy. It would be great if all teenagers had the best, unbiased education, with wonderful MN Mums who are all honest and embrace their teenagers questions, but THAT isn't reality for so many children, giving them OPTIONS is better than rhetoric. HCPs are best placed to monitor etc, and I assume pharmacists would have to be trained to ask the right questions, but, well, what would you rather have: a miserable, pregnant teenager who doesn't know where to turn, or; one that ok, has made "the wrong choice" by having under age sex, but one that is at least prevented as far as they can be from pregnancy. Plus, whilst condoms are the "safest", frankly they're not the easiest thing to use, and I know many adults (including myself) that have ended up pregnant due to condom malfunction/in correct use...let alone teenagers (n.b. I was also on the combined pill at the time, we didn't know then that it was a no-no for me, or that it also doesn't work at stopping me ovulating).

I agree with the concerns about giving hormones too early, but as I've said it's a RISK ASSESSMENT by the HCP, and the teenager.

stealth i can only speak from my experaince and that of a few close friends who were on the pill under 16 and still INSISTED on condom use because it the importance had been drummed into me and them to much to risk it

Sorry I haven't waded through the whole of this thread, but has anybody pointed out so far that it's still (I believe) illegal for anyone under 16 to be having sex?

I know people always come back with the argument that they're doing it anyway, but as a moral point, should we be encouraging young people to break the law?

I think one should buy electronically tested condoms, with a British kitemark of quality, but I have no citations for that.

Oeisha, no that is a point that is addressed in a variety of ways.
You need to have info about coverage of testing

can't girls already get the pill from the family planning clinic without seeing their GP anyway? whatever their age? I suppose its just improving access which can only be a good thing..........

A question that remains unanswered about the issue is risk taking, afaics. Do teenagers take risks in the heat of the moment because they have insufficient access to the pill (or condoms) or do they take risks because they are teens? If the latter, then improving access isn't going to make much difference. I feel there will always be teens for whom throwing caution to the wind is half the attraction and talk of risk assessment, regular checkups, etc., will be meaningless. (Just based on my own observations)

And even with improved access to the pill, as has been pointed out, sex without a condom is std roulette - so risk taking wrt health is actually being ignored it seems, in the pursuit of the goal of reducing teen pregnancies.

MrsMc82, I doubt that improving access to DRUGS which, like any drug can be damaging for health, and it's common knowledge that the pill has some really nasty side-effects in many, many women, cannot be a good thing.

It's councelling, peer support and QUALITY sex ed they should be improving access to. Free condoms, if all else fails. I personally wouldn't object to sex ed lessons where they'd teach how to put in a condom. With cucumbers not real bodily parts!

that was *put ON a condom

Oh, it's absolutely ONLY reducing teen pregnancies they are thinking about, mathanxiety. What gets me though, they are going to create an epidemic of HIV and STIs. How on EARTH can't they see that HIV treatment is going to cost more than single mum benefits is beyond me.

Turquoise, the chances of contracting HIV compared to pregnancy are lower. More girls will get pregnant than contract a life threatening STI and i'm sure that's all they're looking at.