NHS implants birth control without consent or knowlege...

[Tez3]

Tez, I don't see it as the 'State's business to tell anyone what they can or can't do, and I certainly don't think the State should be doing things to people without their knowledge or consent. If I were to find out someone did this to me, my wife or my kids I guarantee that someone would be going home in a bag and police involvement would be certain.

The 'state' didn't do it without permission, the girls gave permission. Now you can argue they weren't old enought but they are already having sex. The thing is though you care, the majority of these parents don't until they are tracked down by a newspaper and paid for a quote. It's all fine saying the state can't do this and that but what happens when no one else cares about these girlls and the 'state' is left to pick up the pieces with housing, benefits etc, if the state has to pay well it's the tax payer isn't it, the taxpayer/state should have a damn say in it. Would you be happy paying for these girls hospital costs, housing and benefits just so they can carry on having kids by different fathers who are themselves young and on benefits etc. Even in your country someone would have to pay for these girls and their babies when the parents don't care, they'd be taken in by your social services and you'd end up as a tax payer paying for them. How do you suggest this problem is sorted?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

How do you suggest this problem is sorted?

Require the parents to um...parent.

We can fix this another way. Just sterilize them. After all, that's simpler, more cost effective and since these are most likely lower class kids, helps minimize the risk of future tax drains on the taxpayers. If the taxpayer is the concern, then do it to minimize long term costs. You can also extend that to people in institutions as well since a retard who gets knocked up can't be an effective parent. Is that ok too?

The 'state' didn't do it without permission, the girls gave permission.

Were they of an age they could give consent? If not, then in my view it doesn't matter what they say.

Now you can argue they weren't old enought but they are already having sex.

So, since they can consent to being drugged, can they now consent to the sex? Signing a contract? Etc?

The thing is though you care, the majority of these parents don't until they are tracked down by a newspaper and paid for a quote.

Pass a law, hit the clueless ****s in the wallet where it matters.

It's all fine saying the state can't do this and that but what happens when no one else cares about these girlls and the 'state' is left to pick up the pieces with housing, benefits etc, if the state has to pay well it's the tax payer isn't it, the taxpayer/state should have a damn say in it.

Round them up, lock them up and don't let them out until they reach 18. Then it's their problem and not the states.

Would you be happy paying for these girls hospital costs, housing and benefits just so they can carry on having kids by different fathers who are themselves young and on benefits etc.

You know my view on welfare. Put them in workfare programs or let them starve. When they break the law, put them in jail.

Even in your country someone would have to pay for these girls and their babies when the parents don't care, they'd be taken in by your social services and you'd end up as a tax payer paying for them.

See above.

Look, it's not that I'm a heartless bastard. It's just that I think parents should parent, and the government shouldn't be a nanny. Help the truely needy, and get the rest off their arses and into being productive members of society.

I also think poorly of anyone who'll harm kids, and I see this as harm. My view. I also thought Texas sucked when they tried to pull it.

 

[Tez3]

How can you complain about giving girls contraception without their parents knowing then say sterilise them in the next breath!

Of course the parents should parent and of course the authorities should stay out but when it's the authorities or I should say us who pick up the bill I think we are entitled to have a say in what happens.


So the authorities stay out of these peoples lives, and girls of 14 have children what then? this isn't in theory which is always good this is in real life when you know the parents don't care, do we leave the gril and her baby out on the street, do we leave that baby to be neglected, what do we do? Not theatorically but in real life, not in a discussion but for real because that's what the authorities have to deal with. the medics in this case were clumsy and mis guided perhaps but at least they were trying to do soemthing about a very real problem that we have to pay for, not just now but in the future because this gets perpetuated down the generations. Saying airily what should happen is fine but social workers, charities, the government and ultimately us have to do something now.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

How can you complain about giving girls contraception without their parents knowing then say sterilise them in the next breath!

I think you missed my point. I'm not saying either is correct. But if 1 is, then so is the other. What else can the State do to someone without consent that the State claims is 'for their own good'?

Of course the parents should parent and of course the authorities should stay out but when it's the authorities or I should say us who pick up the bill I think we are entitled to have a say in what happens.

So then grab some bollocks and go in all the way. Executing them saves a lot of money long term. Because kids from broken homes like this end up creating more broken homes and the tax burden and social burden on society continues to grow.

So the authorities stay out of these peoples lives, and girls of 14 have children what then? this isn't in theory which is always good this is in real life when you know the parents don't care, do we leave the gril and her baby out on the street, do we leave that baby to be neglected, what do we do? Not theatorically but in real life, not in a discussion but for real because that's what the authorities have to deal with. the medics in this case were clumsy and mis guided perhaps but at least they were trying to do soemthing about a very real problem that we have to pay for, not just now but in the future because this gets perpetuated down the generations. Saying airily what should happen is fine but social workers, charities, the government and ultimately us have to do something now.

You can demand that people be responsible and push that, or you can give up and let the State do everything.
I like option A.
Otherwise you start down a path where the State has say over too much of your life, and I for 1 would hate to live in a world where wiping my **** requires the permission of the State.

 

[granfire]

Ah, stop for a sec...

Are we talking about sterilization or BC?

The latter, well isn't it covered under Dr/patient privilege?
I mean, are those doctors roaming the streets, catching young girls and women and putting them under the knife?

 

[cdunn]

There is only one valid question here, in my opinion: Are these girls able to provide sufficiently informed consent to choose to have birth control? NHS doctors aren't hunting down girls and shooting them with birth control darts on the streets, these are girls that are seeking the solution to what they perceive to be a problem.

IMO, I do not think they have the full judgement to do so; at the least, it is not consistent with the general belief that they are not able to provide sufficiently informed consent to freely choose sexual partners. While children are not the property of their parents, we entrusted the parents with the personage of the child until the age of majority, precisely because the child is not developed enough to be fully informed. But, there are practical matters to deal with as well - namely, kids having kids. Therefore, I would happily support a system which makes birth control available by default, with parental notification of the existence of the system, and the ability to opt-out. Therefore, those parents which do have health or moral objections can exercise that protection, but those students whose parents are supportive of birth control, or whose parents have abdicated their postion as guardians can obtain it. This is ennabling the individual to claim responsibility for herself, not pressing that responsiblity into the state's hands.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Ah, stop for a sec...

Are we talking about sterilization or BC?

The latter, well isn't it covered under Dr/patient privilege?
I mean, are those doctors roaming the streets, catching young girls and women and putting them under the knife?

What's the difference? If the bottom line is tax payer costs, then sterilization or execution are much more cost effective than a temporary measure.


People say 'whats the big deal'.
What if it was your kid?
What if it was you?

My point here is this: Should the State be able to do things to you or yours without your knowledge and consent?
Yes or No. Simple question.


In some countries retards -are- sterilized. We make big stinks about it on humanitarian grounds.
In some countries undesirables are executed. We make stink about that too.
How's this different?
"The parents don't care". Who decided that? Were the parents informed? Were notices sent home, phone calls made, officials dispatched to knock on doors and say "hey, your kids a slut and we don't want her popping out lots of little bastards so we're gonna go and shoot her full of drugs to make it safe for her to whore around. Sign here."?

If the kids are -that- poorly parented, surly there is a mechanism in place to get them out of those homes and into ones that will be of help to them? Surely there are laws and mechanisms that hold those parents responsible for their underage kids acts?

 

[granfire]

LOL, there is a slight difference between a snip and tuck and a hormonal implant that does eventually wear off.

In an alien state of mind, looking down on our species, I do have to say, not everything ought to reproduce. However we do believe that there is that thing we grant each other about the right to decide for ourselves...oh well.

However, the implant BC is much gentler on the tax payers wallet than the followup costs of pregnancy, childbirth and subsequent child care. or multiples there of. I know most of you, in the dark deep recesses of their minds would advocate a free tube tying for the 'mother' of numerous children, supporting herself and the spawns via government checks. Don't deny it.


But we are talking the UK system here, right?
It's government paid anyhow.

So the question is parental consent, no?
In this case - depending on the age of said girl I have to say tough luck. Parents do not need to know everything. From a certain age on, that is. Eventually they have to let the kids go and hope they done a halfway decent job of raising them.

So, unless the Doctors implanted the girls without their knowledge...or really young girls (and then again, if the girls are in need of it, being active and/or cogniscent of BC...it's probably prudent, too)


If it was my kid I would have to ask myself where I went wrong that I missed the opportunity for an open discourse of the topic, both about the ramifications of having sex and the methods and needs to prevent pregnancies.

Again. The snip and tuck vs implant...

The patient's consent vs a third party

Age is naturally relevant.

From years past, I remember letters to the infamous 'Dr Sommer' in a popular German youth magazine, how many were asking basic questions, under the premise that they could not talk to their parents. The answers normally went along the line of 'go see a doctor, he, she cannot talk to your parent without your ok.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Age of Consent in the UK is listed at 16.
At what age in the UK can someone legally sign a binding contract? US is 18. I go by that number here.

Anyone under the age of consent should have had a parent sign off on it.
Anyone between the AOC and age of binding is grey, and should have had a parent sign off on it.
Anyone over the age they can sign a binding contract can take responsibility for them selves.



What I might want in a case like this is irrelevant.
I'm only arguing is it right for the state to modify minor children without parental consent.

 

[granfire]

Age of Consent in the UK is listed at 16.
At what age in the UK can someone legally sign a binding contract? US is 18. I go by that number here.

Anyone under the age of consent should have had a parent sign off on it.
Anyone between the AOC and age of binding is grey, and should have had a parent sign off on it.
Anyone over the age they can sign a binding contract can take responsibility for them selves.



What I might want in a case like this is irrelevant.
I'm only arguing is it right for the state to modify minor children without parental consent.

Well here in Bama you can't own a car until you are 19 I have been told.

However, we are not talking about sex, we are talking about the doctor handing out BC.

While you won't need BC without sex, it's not the same thing.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The OP didn't say 'underage girls were handed some gummi's and told to wrap it before they wack it' it said 'injected'. Bit more invasive IMO.

 

[granfire]

The OP didn't say 'underage girls were handed some gummi's and told to wrap it before they wack it' it said 'injected'. Bit more invasive IMO.

certainly is, but no more than any vaccination.

Parents like to think that if they don't tell their kids, the kids won't know and don't do it. Whatever 'it' is.
You can't bubble wrap kids. As a parent you ought to be on top of things, and yeah, trust and communication over control the uncontrollable. The equipment works from a certain point on, no instruction manual needed.

However, we are back to the issue of Doctor/Patient communication. does a doctor have the obligation to tell a parent that their child came in for a sex related visit.

 

[ballen0351]

Well here in Bama you can't own a car until you are 19 I have been told.

im not sure that true I just looked at alabama motor vehicles info and I see no age requirement

However, we are not talking about sex, we are talking about the doctor handing out BC.

While you won't need BC without sex, it's not the same thing.

were also not talking about just giving kids condoms and explaining STDs and pregnancy were talking about a medication implanted into a childs arm without parental notification or approval. Big difference.

 

[granfire]

were also not talking about just giving kids condoms and explaining STDs and pregnancy were talking about a medication implanted into a childs arm without parental notification or approval. Big difference.

It's a treatment in a doctor's office. From a certain point on parents no longer have the automatic right to be notified about any exchanges in the office.
it then makes no difference if it's condoms and the STD lecture or the implant.

The point here is - should - be if the person getting the implant was properly informed and consented.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The point here is - should - be if the person getting the implant was properly informed and consented.

According to the nice people at NAMBLA, those kids consent too.

So..... a kid can consent to drugs and it's ok, but not sex? Or does the validity of consent depend on if "The State" thinks it's good?

 

[Carol]

I had to get birth control on my own when I was underage. The reasons had nothing to do with sex. From what I've been told by several medical professionals (Dirty Dog can correct me if I'm off the mark here) the BCP was originally invented to control and treat issues caused by hormonal regularities. The suppression of ovulation was an unexpected, albeit interesting, side effect.

Leave it up to the parents? Yeah, lots of things should be left up to the parents. Unless of course you have parents that have a sick sense of "love" and would rather see their a sick kid weakened by anaemia then get them the treatment they needed to solve the issues causing the anaemia in the first place. For me, the BCP had nothing to do with sex, it was medicine. There are probably some folks chuckling right now and thinking yeah surrrrrrre, uh huh.

I made the decision well before I was diagnosed with metorrhagia to not have sex until later on in my life. I had many reasons for this, and looking back I am thoroughly glad I made that decision and stuck with it. Despite that, I still could not get my parents to finance BCP at $30/month for her sick kid. $30/month may not seem like a lot unless you are 14-15 years old, no drivers license, scant work opportunities, and you have to pay for it with practically no income and you are losing your ability to work and keep your grades up due to fatigue.

Bottom line, parenting is no different than any other intimate relationship -- it can be amazingly beautiful. Unfortunately certain people or scenarios it also breeds issues of control, power, scorn, disrespect, disgust, and hurt. I would have just liked to have gotten the treatment I needed from my doctor and pharmacy rather than finding out alternatives from sexually active friends and sneaking around to certain clinics two towns over just to get my meds.

Birth control is an area that still raises a lot of heated emotions. I'd hate to see other young women go through what I went through. Whether this should be done in school by government officials is perhaps a different discussion but based on my own experience, it is very difficult for me to come out on the side of banning access to birth control for anyone under 18 without their parents permission.

 

[Tez3]

According to the nice people at NAMBLA, those kids consent too.

So..... a kid can consent to drugs and it's ok, but not sex? Or does the validity of consent depend on if "The State" thinks it's good?

I think you'll find the kids have already consented to sex.

Injecting chemicals into children I guess is only to be done by mothers.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3565711/Mum-injects-her-girl-7-with-Botox.html

 

[ballen0351]

IIm somewhat shocked so many people would so willingly allow the state to do whatever they wanted to your children without your consent or knowledge. I glad you all trust the govt so much to be a better parent then you are.

 

[ballen0351]

I think you'll find the kids have already consented to sex

kids can aslo consent to sex with adults is that ok? Kids can consent to smoking crack is that ok? Kids can consent to being a prostitute for extra allowance is that ok?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I think you'll find the kids have already consented to sex.

So....despite your legal age being 16, a 13 yr old can over rule it?

Injecting chemicals into children I guess is only to be done by mothers.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3565711/Mum-injects-her-girl-7-with-Botox.html

That to me falls into 'abuse'.