Who objects to this institutionalized child abuse?

[TheFury]

How can it possibly have come about that some GPs are effectively condoning, covering up and actively facilitating child abuse by prescribing contraception to 11-year-old girls without the consent or knowledge of their parents (see Sunday Times lead today)? Sex with a minor is a criminal offence, but they are effectively concealing the crime by their actions and supinely allowing it to continue. Since authority figures such as GPs are involved, it effectively amounts to institutionalized child abuse. How on earth has this situation been allowed to develop? When was legislation passed to allow the State to interpose itself between children and their parents in this way? Even a pregnancy would be better ~ at least the situation would be out in the open and the parents could deal with it through a quick and easy abortion, trace the culprit who has made their daughter pregnant and have him prosecuted. As it stands, this is an intolerable situation and it is time we mothers of daughters stopped being apathetic and began actively campaigning to change whatever recent law has allowed GPs to act against the interests of these little girls in secrecy. Some long-term injectable or implanted contraception, amounting to a bombardment of hormones, in such young children could imperil their future fertility and may have all sorts of long term medical implications. GPs are not chemists. They know absolutely nothing about drugs and are simply not in a position to judge the long-term effects of what they are prescribing. We have a collective duty to put a stop to all this. Please do reply to discuss what we can do.

Sorry I was in a hurry and did not finish typing one sentence (Gp acting as a mediator or something like that.)

OP - words fail me. let's break it down for you.

a. frequency - I would highly doubt there are scads of eleven year olds asking for contraception. a journalist has obviously found a single case. one does not equal an epidemic.

b. control - if this did occur, there would be serious questions asked. and then of course the gillick competency/fraser guidelines kick in. GPs are not silly. These guidelines are in place to protect children - they have been thought about/debated at the highest level. They weren't just pulled out of someone's backside.

c. knowledge - GPs know as much as pharmacists about pharmacology. unless they are those crazy GPs who faked medical school.

d. pregnancy v abortion - either is a ridiculous outcome for an eleven year old, with both physical and emotional implications.

sorry, but it's statements like this that actually prompt me to post.

gorionine and Callisto, if an eleven year old girl is being raped and is seeking contraception without her parent's knowledge, there is a very, very high chance that the perpetrator is a family member. And if not, then chances are that the family culture is such that she would be punished.

So yes, it is a parenting issue. Parental notification laws are usually a horrible idea though.

You are probably right tortoise but I cannot help thinking that if DD1 (11) was in a situation to have to go and see a GP for contraceptive pill I would like to know so I could be there for her IYSWIM. I think an 11 yo might think "her parents would kill her if they knew" but that in actual fact it would not necessary be the case? I would not be chuffed but I would certainly not kill her.

The children of concerned, loving and involved parents are extremely unlikely to be seeking contraceptive advice at 11. Of the tiny number of children in this position, most, if not all will have no family support. Contraception is the least worst option. Involving the families of these children will almost certainly make theri situation even worse.

OP - is this inspired by the lousy front page article in the Sunday Times yesterday (which belonged more on the front page of the Daily Express, so poor it was).

The article quoted an increase in the number of contraceptives prescribed to under-16s - cannot remember the actual figures but iirc it was a threefold increase.

What the artucle did NOT refer to was the amount of these prescriptions were given due to the child having heavy periods/acne, NOT sexual activity. My daughter (14) is one of many of her friends who has been on the pill since she was 13, due to very heavy and painful periods. I am pleased that doctors are more enlightened these days, and don't just expect girls to put up with heavy periods and hormonal mood swings, and put them on the pill to reduce this. It has made a huge difference to my daughter's life.
A lot of dd;s friends are also on the pill because they have acne.

I cannot imagine that there are legions of 11 year olds scampering around the country having sex, but if they are, surely it is better that they can go and see a doctor in confidence and be prescribed contraception anyway.

This article, and the OP, are just typical tabloid 'youth of today' short sightedness.

Quick and easy abortion? I'll tell that to my mum should I, who after 30 odd years is still suffering emotionally after having an abortion as a teenager? I'm sure she will be pleased to know that she have gotten over it by now

Get a grip ffs. It's the contraceptive pill, not arsenic. Women have been using it for many reasons and many years. My sister started on the pill at around 11 because of hormone problems. She now has three very healthy children.

Actually, the OP is not particularly concerned about 11 year olds at all. This is some scaremongering twat whose real agenda is to prevent 4 and 15 year olds having access to contraception without their parents knowledge because the OP thinks that having sex is a bad thing and teenagers shouldn't be allowed to do it. A lot of antisex, misogynistic fuckups get all hysterical on behalf of the innocent ikle children when the real agenda is to make teenagers frightened of their own developing sexuality and put it under the control of their parents.

Oh god how did I miss that in the OP 'quick and easy abortion'

Actually agree with Seeker - this is some moron from teh Daily Mail or something. NOBODY can genuinely think that abortion for an 11 year old is preferable to the pill. It's just someone stirring it up.

Tortoise - agree completely. So then it is about 'breaking the cycle'. The cause is abusive/dysfunctional families, the symptom is the child seeing contraception. But there must be more than just a GP prescribing the pill and forgetting about it. Someone mentioned it was flagged to SS or the police, presumably if the GP is approached by the child without any parental input, as there would be if it was painful periods. What happens then I wonder?

Actually, is any approach by an 11 yr old to their GP for contraceptives without their parents' knowledge not far more likely to be a child wanting treatment for painful periods/acne but knowing that their parents disapprove of the pill (for cultural/religious reasons say)?

An 11yr old would be far more likely to be found Gillick competent in that scenario than if they wanted contraceptives to prevent pregnancy.

But I agree, this sounds like the usual twisting of public health stats for sensation that I'd have expected from the Mail or the Express rather than the ST. But then I can't read the story because it's behind the paywall - meh.

One of my best friends was on the pill from age 12, because of her very heavy periods. She's never needed it for contraception, as she's a lesbian.

Having said that, I believe it is true that doctors get surprisingly little training in pharmacology. I was told this by someone from the British Pharmacological Society, and I believe that they as an organisation see it as an issue.

What a stupid OP. Talk about over reacting.

Grendel - I think that's professional tribalism. I'm sure the GPs complain about the pharmacists too. And solicitors complain about barristers and vice versa.

Wow, DrPetra's blog is interesting. I'm amazed that 15 journalists who called her for comment were were so ruddy ignorant - really, that many hacks that don't know hormonal contraception is prescribed for acne/painful periods/other reasons? Only excuse I can imagine is that 13/15 were men and I'd bet most of them were not health specialists.

I'm a female health journalist and I'd be astounded if any of the other health correspondents I know were so daft. Sometimes, however, the news editor demands that the story is written in a certain way and you can tell them till you are blue in the face that's not the case but they won't have it... or a sub changes something without realising they've changed the meaning and without checking with the reporter.

DrPetra is fab, I met her years and years ago and she was like the Voice Of Reason then.

"How can it possibly have come about that some GPs are effectively condoning, covering up and actively facilitating child abuse by prescribing contraception to 11-year-old girls without the consent or knowledge of their parents?"

The vast majority of girls on the pill at that age will be on it for periods/acne, not because they are having sex.

"Even a pregnancy would be better ~ at least the situation would be out in the open and the parents could deal with it through a quick and easy abortion, trace the culprit who has made their daughter pregnant and have him prosecuted."

It is sad but in many cases at the age of 11 it will be a family member, perhaps even the girl's father. Abortions are NOT quick and easy, a girl at my DD's school was effectively forced into having an abortion by her parents and then attempted suicide because of it. I'm absolutely disgusted that you could use those words to describe an emotionally and physically traumatic medical procedure.

"As it stands, this is an intolerable situation and it is time we mothers of daughters stopped being apathetic and began actively campaigning to change whatever recent law has allowed GPs to act against the interests of these little girls in secrecy."

I would rather if my DD did choose to have sex at a young age that she was sensibly using contraception, personally, so I think it IS in her interest. And where do you draw the line? 16? 18?

And I don't think an 11yo is a "little girl", but there you go.

"Some long-term injectable or implanted contraception, amounting to a bombardment of hormones, in such young children could imperil their future fertility and may have all sorts of long term medical implications."

Sorry but I think this is bollocks, yes it "could" but anything "could" have any consequence. What's your source for this?

"GPs are not chemists. They know absolutely nothing about drugs and are simply not in a position to judge the long-term effects of what they are prescribing."

I'm sorry, GPs know nothing about drugs?! Why do we bother having them then??!

"We have a collective duty to put a stop to all this. Please do reply to discuss what we can do."

I've got a good one. We can stop living in this pompous bubble you seem to inhabit where parents are always concerned about the best interests of their child. Even better, we can stop parrotting everything we read in the newspapers, because often it is a pile of sensationalised wank.