Young teen age girls getting contraceptives without parents' knowledge

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Doesn't the law also say something about no sex untill sixteen years of age or something? Which law is very clear?

 

The law is known as Gillick competence. Gillick competence is a term used in medical law to decide whether a child is able to consent to medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge.

 

This matter was litigated because an activist, Mrs. Victoria Gillick ran an active campaign against the policy. Mrs Gillick sought a declaration that prescribing contraception was illegal because the doctor would commit an offence of encouraging sex with a minor, and that it would be treatment without consent as consent vested in the parent. The judgement was:

 

As a matter of Law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed." Lord Scarman

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

Edited June 4, 2010 by JFKvsNixon
spelling as usual

[JFKvsNixon 11]

They are, but they both illustrate the fact that a child is not always mature enough to make such decisions, even though they may appear to be.

 

You are right, and if the GP didn't Judge the child to be mature enough they wouldn't prescribe the contraception, or any medical treratment without the parents consent.

Edited June 4, 2010 by JFKvsNixon
Spelling as usual

[carly83 10]

This is a public forum in which people are free to respond to threads with THEIR opinions, why is it that you have such a problem with MY opinion as this is all it is, everyone is entitled to their say and no we are not all going to agree and feel the same way about issues but there is absolutely no need to insult me because I happen to have a different view on things from you!!!!

 

here we go again see post 227 as i really can be bothered repeating my self:suspect:

[falpere 10]

You are right, and if the GP didn't Judge the child to be mature enough they wouldn't prescribe the contraception, or any medical treratment without the parents consent.

 

Its a big ask of the poor GP's don't you think? I don't envy them.

[medusa 16]

Let me try to explain this again, It is not the contraceptives I have an issue with, I myself had to go on the pill for other reasons when I was young.

 

My problem is with a doctor prescribing contraceptives to an underage girl, knowing that her reason for wanting them is purely to indulge in under age sex, That is my problem, I have never said that I did not agree with them being prescribed for other medical reasons and I would like to think that if a young girl went to the doctors with say heavy painful periods that the doctor would do further tests before just issuing them with the pill or implants.

 

If the girl is planning on indulging in underage sex do you think that the doctor would help her better by denying her contraception or referring her for an abortion?

 

Every doctor has to act in the best interests of their patient and if the 'words of wisdom' have not prevented the girl from having sex then the doctors must live in the real world and act according to the law, which states that if she is thought to be properly aware of her actions then she should have the contraception she is seeking by being at the doctor's surgery in the first place.

 

Even though you plan on this not happening to your daughter, you must surely see that if there are girls who are able to have sex and conceive and who cannot be completely prevented from doing so, then there must also be some sort of plan to reduce the disaster potential from all the unplanned pregnancies which result?

 

It's not perfect, but if you can come up with a real world scenario that will reduce the quantity of teenage unplanned pregnancies better then I'm sure that the government and the NHS would love to hear from you.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Its a big ask of the poor GP's don't you think? I don't envy them.

 

You're right it is a big responsibility, amongst many. That's why they have around 10 years training, I guess.

[rainbow sky 10]

If the girl is planning on indulging in underage sex do you think that the doctor would help her better by denying her contraception or referring her for an abortion?

 

Every doctor has to act in the best interests of their patient and if the 'words of wisdom' have not prevented the girl from having sex then the doctors must live in the real world and act according to the law, which states that if she is thought to be properly aware of her actions then she should have the contraception she is seeking by being at the doctor's surgery in the first place.

 

Even though you plan on this not happening to your daughter, you must surely see that if there are girls who are able to have sex and conceive and who cannot be completely prevented from doing so, then there must also be some sort of plan to reduce the disaster potential from all the unplanned pregnancies which result?

 

It's not perfect, but if you can come up with a real world scenario that will reduce the quantity of teenage unplanned pregnancies better then I'm sure that the government and the NHS would love to hear from you.

 

 

 

As I have repeatedly said, we all have different views. Yours is to prescribe to the underage in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Mine is not to prescribe (without parental consent) which then might make the girl think twice about having sex at such a young age.

 

Which is better?

 

Everyone has different opinions and we should all be able to respect each others views, something that is proving difficult in this thread!!!!

[rainbow sky 10]

here we go again see post 227 as i really can be bothered repeating my self:suspect:

 

Me neither, so not going to bother.

[Daven 10]

As I have repeatedly said, we all have different views. Yours is to prescribe to the underage in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Mine is not to prescribe (without parental consent) which then might make the girl think twice about having sex at such a young age.

 

Which is better?

 

Everyone has different opinions and we should all be able to respect each others views, something that is proving difficult in this thread!!!!

 

But judging by the very high and rising teenage pregnancy rate - very few girls 'think twice about having sex at such a young age' . By denying them contraception, all you will do is to increase the rate even further.

They will have sex whether they're taking contraceptives or not.

[esme 10]

do you honestly think that if your child were planning on indulging in under age sex that she would have had an implant ?

 

something that can't be hidden, something that you are bound to notice sooner or later

 

would she not have gone for something a little easier to hide like pills ?

 

if she's smart enough to sort this out on her own then she's smart enough to know that you'd eventually spot an implant

 

she's had this done to control period pains, she's being sensible and responsible, credit her with some maturity

 

and be careful you don't turn your child against you

[rainbow sky 10]

But judging by the very high and rising teenage pregnancy rate - very few girls 'think twice about having sex at such a young age' . By denying them contraception, all you will do is to increase the rate even further.

They will have sex whether they're taking contraceptives or not.

 

Yes but you could also say that by offering them contraceptives that this is increasing the number of girls actually having sex in first place, surely the best form of contraception is not to have sex.

 

I see what you are saying but I am just giving my own personal opinion, thats all.

[esme 10]

denying these kids access to contraception won't stop them having sex, it will increase the rate of teenage pregnancies