10 year olds on contraceptives, was on this morning, could it ever be ok?

[ChoochiWoo]

www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/wellbeing/11376747/How-can-it-be-right-to-give-10-year-old-girls-contraceptive-impants.html

I had a friend back in the 70s, she was a very sexually mature 10 year old. She had all sorts of body issues, it was not at all pleasant. She was put on the pill at 10. These days she would have to have the implant. Having to take the pill was a daily reminder that she was different, the implant would have removed that constant reminder and allowed her to have more of a normal childhood.

I also have a problem with the suggestion that offering it to a girl who was at risk or sexually active was to condone rape. So we protect our sensibilities and not the child, do we? No... we give the child protection of all sorts...

Nomamma....including the sort of protection that means she isn't raped is the point I am trying to make. We do not have to accept a child of 10 being in imminent danger of rape.

the article is very unclear but it does NOT say that 10 year olds where getting it 'for protection'

any healthcare or other professional who is aware that an child under 12 is engaging in sexual activity is obliged to report since it is abuse - 12 and under - you can not legally consent to sex

13-16 is a bit more grey but there are very clear guidelines around sexual exploitation

I therefore doubt very much that 10 year olds where given it for contraceptive reasons

Well, the article does say this was two 10 year olds, over a five year period. If they are being given it for contraceptive reasons rather than controlling periods/hormone levels, then obviously that's two more than we would wish, but it's a small enough number that we are looking at extreme, complex, situations and not the NHS handing out contraceptives without powerful reasons.

As others have said, sometimes there's a limit to how much you can protect someone who has already been failed by family/society to that extent, and you do what you can to mitigate the risks while you try to provide a better set of outcomes for the future.

If you read the article then it says that the implant has been given because of exceptional circumstances and in order to safeguard a child, or for health reasons.

The article is vague enough that it's impossible to know how many implants are given for safeguarding reasons and how many are for health.

Hopefully in the cases where very young, pre-teen children have been given the implant this has largely been due to health reasons (eg: painful periods) rather than to safeguard the child from pregnancy as it's hard to imagine that SS wouldn't intervene to remove the child from a situation in which she was at a high risk of rape.

With older children (12/13/14) I can imagine in some cases it isn't possible to remove the child from the situation (especially if she is 'consenting') and that more of the implants are given for safe-guarding than health.

I understood that, BarbarianMum... but contraception MUST be part of that protection and the words

If a girl of 10 is having sex then surely she is being abused and social services need to get in there and get her the hell out of that situation, not give her an implant?

and your question Isn't it tantermount to accepting that the abuse will take place and just trying to minimise the consequences rather than, you know, protecting the child?

make me uncomfortable, as I'd expect that, in that scenario, all else would be done, either triggered by the need for contraception or as part of the wider needs already identified.

I think it is very hard to have a firm stance on this when so little information is available. We have NO idea why these girls were given the implant and we are just speculating.

If you read the article then it says that the implant has been given because of exceptional circumstances and in order to safeguard a child, or for health reasons

but that is referring to ALL under 16's who received it - not specifically in reference to 10 year olds

it is very vague which is probably why it's been jumped on by day time TV - easy to whip up a moral frenzy

I have a 10 year old who is suffering horribly with acne and tummy pain (no periods yet) - it would't be my first choice of treatment but if it helped in anyway I might discuss the option with her.

Understood Nomamma but after Rotherham I wouldn't necessarily expect that at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

I was 12 when prescribed the pill because I was already suffering with migraines that became worse (hospitalised) with the onset of periods. So I could imagine being prescribed the implant at that age.

Ah! Rotherham!

I have to admit I point blank refuse to give that scandal any room in my head/world view. A bit like the Orkney debacle (looking at it from the other end of the idiots-in-charge spectrum). Fuckwittery on such a grand scale cannot be the yardstick by which any life is measured!

Then again... did you hear that the council had had to resign this week as they STILL have NOTHING in place to prevent such a thing happening again? Not fit for purpose hardly covers it!

Well I live in Sheffield and the more I find out about policing in S. Yorkshire the less I trust those in authority to do the right thing/anything at all