NHS implants birth control without consent or knowlege...

[Tez3]

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.

Neither the 'state' nor the 'government' has any say in this actually. It would have been the decision of the local PCT.
http://www.southamptonhealth.nhs.uk/welcome/

so, a few girls who classed as 'at risk' are given a contraceptive and you assume this is happening everywhere to all of our children? You are also assuming we agree with it. we don't but we can see why it happened, there should a have been a better way to deal with the problem, it was badly handled but we can't hide from the fact that there is a problem by spouting fine rhetoric.
http://lutonchildcare.proceduresonline.com/chapters/g_cin_def_criteria.htm#cat_cin

 

[granfire]

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.

I thought in your line of work you have seen a lot of parents who ought not be allowed to have a pet rock...

aside from the fact that it's not the state that does it, but a doctor. So he gets paid from the state and not Blue Cross...

And don't bring child prostitutes in there. Stay on topic.

Legal consent and actually adhering to it are different matters.

So you advocate to not giving young girls BC though you know they are sexually active? How does that make you responsible? I bed you, explain.

and who on earth said they were having sex with adults? Which btw is not important in the matter of BC. The swimmers swim, fastest on a certain day gets a prize.

Problem: Young girls are having sex
Solution: To the sex part, actually non. It's a society thing, won't be fixed in a jiffy, it will take a generation or so.

Problem: Birth Control
Solution: Give the people in need the protection needed.

Problem: Parental consent
Solution: None. from one point on they don't have that right anymore. And if they don't know what their kid is doing...

Problem: Parents don't know what is going on
Solution? Your guess is as good as mine.


And there is ballen's worst case scenario: old men raping good little girls and turning them into hookers...
Not saying it does not happen, but sheesh.
And even in that case, a long lasting BC is not a bad thing.

 

[Tez3]

If it were boys of this age would we be having the same discussion? Aren't girls today doing what boys have always done, only, as always the consequences for girls are higher. No one is happy that young people this age are having sex but they are and until we know how to stop that we need to take care of the problem of teenage births. Is anyone going to be happy if abortion were the answer? No, and that does go for the pro choice people, no one wants that so despite good sex education, the teaching about sexual diseases, teaching them to say no, teaching them safe sex, teaching them nothing, teaching them everything they are having sex at 13 so what do we do now? someone somewhere, under the pressure of the mounting statistics of children giving birth to children thought ah lets at least give them contraception they can't forget to take or their boyfriend can say don't use, the girls agreed, they are the ones having sex despite everything society has tried to stop them, so they were given contraception without parents consent. Hearts may have been in the right place, heads certainly weren't. there will an enquiry, the posh people will tut and then what....? governments and civil rights aside, what can be done?

 

[ballen0351]

Yes we would have this discussion for boys as well. Nowhere did I say I was against BC. BC does not bother me I could care less. Its that kids were given an injection or implanted with a drug without notification to a legal guardian . They took the choice away from a guardian and left it up to a 13vote year old that is not mature enough to weigh att the risks as far as side effects. Everyday more and more research shows how dangerious these drugs can be with blood clots ect. Also as far as I can find thete has been no long term study on the effects of these drugs on young girls in the long term. My girls will be taught about sex and the use of condoms. They don't need to be pumped full of artifical chemicals when we have no idea of the long term effects of them. That's my decision and no govt agency or doc has the right to change that. When she's 18to she's free to do as she wants then

 

[ballen0351]

by the way if strage out of place words appear in my post its my phone and I don't know why its doing that

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If it were boys of this age would we be having the same discussion?

Yes.

 

[ballen0351]

Yes.

And to go one further if it was not BC and it was a vaccine for small pox and it was given to my child without my knowledge id still be upset. Does that mean im against small pox vaccines? No it means im for knowing what's going on with my child

 

[Tez3]

by the way if strage out of place words appear in my post its my phone and I don't know why its doing that

You'll have to watch that lol! it could end up with you saying things you didn't mean!


Permission was sought from parents, letters had gone out, I imagine that schools who hold in loco parentis while pupils are in them gave permission in lieu of the parents lack of interest.
This is what they were given. http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/828.aspx


Children under 16

• Children in this age group are not deemed to be automatically legally competent to give consent.
• The courts have determined that such children can be legally competent if they have 'sufficient understanding and maturity to enable them to understand fully what is proposed'.
• This concept - now known as 'Gillick competency' - initially arose in the case of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Health Authority in 1986.[SUP]8[/SUP] The term 'Fraser competency' is also used in this respect (Lord Fraser was the judge who ruled on the case).
• Some authorities refer to Fraser competency when talking about contraception and Gillick competency when talking about wider areas of consent.[SUP]9[/SUP] In many cases the two terms are used interchangeably.
• Much will depend on the relationship of the clinician with the child and the family and also on what intervention is being proposed.
• A young person who has the capacity to consent to straightforward, relatively risk-free treatment may not necessarily have the capacity to consent to complex treatment involving high risks or serious consequences.[SUP]1[/SUP]
• Competency is something that can be developed over time by presenting the child with information appropriate to their age and level of education and this process may be a rewarding one in the management of children with long-term conditions that involve several therapeutic procedures or investigations.
• The emphasis in the Department of Health's guidance is that the families of children in this age group should be involved in decisions about their care, unless there is a very good reason for not doing so.
• If, however, a competent child under the age of 16 is insistent that their family should not be involved, their right to confidentiality must be respected, unless such an approach would put them at serious risk of harm.
• It should be noted that this legal framework applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, there is no statutory legislation but there is clear case law to guide practitioners.

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Consent-to-Treatment-in-Children.htm

 

[ballen0351]

Sow who decides if she's competent?

Sending home a letter is not enough it should require a signed permission slip from a parent

 

[Tez3]

Sow who decides if she's competent?

Sending home a letter is not enough it should require a signed permission slip from a parent

The letter would have been a permission slip. When we discuss this among ourselves we are discussing it with a bunch of on the whole like minded responsible adults, frankly it wouldn't be our children that had this contraceptive given to them would it? We would be telling our children about sex etc, we take responsibility for our children. If, sadly, our children did get pregnant while at school we'd take responsibility then too, we wouldn't leave it to others be it medics, government or social workers, it would be us. However the girls we are talking about don't have parents like us, if they did we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[aedrasteia]

However the girls we are talking about don't have parents like us, if they did we wouldn't be having this discussion.

what she said. x20.

Good on you Tez. Trying to positive rep you - tech problems? anyway.. consider yourself +rep.
and thanks.

 

[granfire]

Yes we would have this discussion for boys as well. Nowhere did I say I was against BC. BC does not bother me I could care less. Its that kids were given an injection or implanted with a drug without notification to a legal guardian . They took the choice away from a guardian and left it up to a 13vote year old that is not mature enough to weigh att the risks as far as side effects. Everyday more and more research shows how dangerious these drugs can be with blood clots ect. Also as far as I can find thete has been no long term study on the effects of these drugs on young girls in the long term. My girls will be taught about sex and the use of condoms. They don't need to be pumped full of artifical chemicals when we have no idea of the long term effects of them. That's my decision and no govt agency or doc has the right to change that. When she's 18to she's free to do as she wants then

ah, the pill has been on the market for over 50 years by now, that is roughly twice the reproductive period of a women.

It's pretty well researched.

However, I am pretty sure that somewhere around the age of 16 the parent's rights in terms of health matters rapidly diminish.
So should your daughters decide they rather have the added 4.9% points of security, plus the advantageous side effects the pill can have I don't think you have much recourse.

 

[ballen0351]

ah, the pill has been on the market for over 50 years by now, that is roughly twice the reproductive period of a women.

It's pretty well researched.

So then why do they still find issues about the pill? Yaz or whatever its called just had a major lawsuit due to side effects. Again where are the studies done on people that started at 13?

However, I am pretty sure that somewhere around the age of 16 the parent's rights in terms of health matters rapidly diminish.

Well maybe in your family.

So should your daughters decide they rather have the added 4.9% points of security, plus the advantageous side effects the pill can have I don't think you have much recourse.

Well luckly for me we live over an hour away from the closest Planned Parenthood clinic so im not to worried about it. But you raise you kid who you want and ill raise mine.

 

[ballen0351]

However the girls we are talking about don't have parents like us, if they did we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Correct but because they dont take care of their kids others should loose their rights to be a good parent?

 

[Tez3]

Correct but because they dont take care of their kids others should loose their rights to be a good parent?

You've missed the point, those who take care of their children don't lose their rights. You still seem to think this is a general thing that all girls are having done instead of it being an isolated incident in one school in one town as someone thought it might be a solution to a very sticky problem. No one who looks after their children will lose anything.

 

[billc]

Well, if injecting birth control chemicals in 13 year olds can be justified because they may not have good parents, and they might have sex and some 13 year olds are mature enough to decide to get birth control, how about chemical birth control for boys, otherwise known as chemical castration. Since most girls are pressured into sex by their boyfriends, cutting down on their sex drive would only make sense. You would be addressing the problem of unwanted human life from both sides of the equation.

For example, if you have a 13 year old boy who is getting into a lot of trouble, you could bring him into the admin. office and tell him, if he doesn't want his parents involved in the problem, he could "volunteer" for implanting chemicals that would reduce his tendency for bad behavior. You would solve the teen sex problem, and at the same time possibly reduce his desire to "act out" through anti-social behavior. Since the drug is a birth control drug, you wouldn't have to get the parent's permission. Would that be okay as well?

Back to the regular topic, is it only an isolated incident? Has anyone looked into it yet?

 

[MJS]

It's good to know the government is ready to take care of your kids for you. They always get it right, never use untested drugs, and always have your kids best interest at heart, regardless of your wishes as their parents.

Yup, just like the govt dictates alot of what we do in life. OTOH, I find it interesting that all these people who get knocked up and can't afford the kid and need all this help, go running right for the state/govt run programs. Go figure.

 

[MJS]

Option 1: Have the state or someone else (see my posts for who) teach sex ed.

Option 2: Have the parents do it.

Option 3: Have nobody do it.

I dont know about anyone else but IMO, option 3 sucks and option 2 is on the fence, depending on how its done. So, what happens if the parents say, "Nobody is doing it but me.....but I'm not going to, because sex is something that should only be done between 2 people who understand it." Its like taking a gun, putting 1 round in, putting it to your head, pulling the trigger, and hoping that you dont get shot. At some point, you're bound to get your friggin head blown off.

Well, since it seems nobody answered, I'll ask again. If a parent feels that nobody but THEM should talk to their kids about sex, ok, fine, I'll accept that opinion. But, let me ask this...if you choose to not say anything or much of anything, what will your feelings be, if your daughter gets pregnant or your son comes to you and tells you that he got a girl pregnant?

 

[billc]

I'm sure we would throw a party and celebrate. Now for the real answer,it would be a time of hardship and heartbreak, no doubt. You suffer the consequences as best you can as you either put the baby up for adoption or try to raise the baby as a family. That is why as a parent you do talk to your kids about why it is such a bad idea to have a baby when you aren't even out of high school.

 

[Tez3]

Well, if injecting birth control chemicals in 13 year olds can be justified because they may not have good parents, and they might have sex and some 13 year olds are mature enough to decide to get birth control, how about chemical birth control for boys, otherwise known as chemical castration. Since most girls are pressured into sex by their boyfriends, cutting down on their sex drive would only make sense. You would be addressing the problem of unwanted human life from both sides of the equation.

For example, if you have a 13 year old boy who is getting into a lot of trouble, you could bring him into the admin. office and tell him, if he doesn't want his parents involved in the problem, he could "volunteer" for implanting chemicals that would reduce his tendency for bad behavior. You would solve the teen sex problem, and at the same time possibly reduce his desire to "act out" through anti-social behavior. Since the drug is a birth control drug, you wouldn't have to get the parent's permission. Would that be okay as well?

Back to the regular topic, is it only an isolated incident? Has anyone looked into it yet?

Those are some very sick suggestions.

To go over all you have misunderstood would take a little too much time that I will never get back. Suffice to say you have twisted things around to suit your purposes of saying the left wants government control etc etc however I should remind you of one thing....we have a Conservative Prime Minister and Minister of State for Health, true blue Tories so that must make it alright in your eyes surely.