If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Pill for under-16s
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I saw this when they were going through tomorrows papers on BBC news a moment ago, and could just feel the outrage emanating from the front of the Daily Mail. I'll try and post the story when they publish it on their website, but for now, here's Channel 4's take on it. The jist is that chemists are now able to sell the pill to anyone, including under 16s, after a consultation with a pharmacist rather than a GP.
Good I say. Anyone disagree with this?
Good I say. Anyone disagree with this?
0
Comments
The questions that need to be asked and the advice that needs to be given isn't exactly rocket science.
I was on the pill as an under 16 and I'm very happy with how that worked, I got good advice, respect and clear explanations. It didn't need to be a GP that I got that from, in many ways it might have been easier if it wasn't my GP.
The reality - that if you stop access to contraception more teenagers will get pregnant - never seems to strike them. I had sex before I was 16, and its a lucky thing I didn't end up pregnant. My best friend at the time advised me to go on the pill, but the prospect of going to my local GP, who knew me and my parents since childhood, was just too embarrassing, so I didn't.
Giving young girls a more anonymous option is a sensible and long overdue measure.
Firstly, they are making it easier for under 16's to get the pill; therefore get contraception and have safe sex. Fab; better than having unsafe sex. But now where is the relevance to the legal age of 16. They can have sex under 16; no-one could ever physically stop two teens doing that. But now they are making it very very easy for two teens to practice safe sex. So why not just scrap the whole age of 16? It isn't holding any importance anymore; never has done really. I stand to be corrected.
Secondly they are talking about raising the age of alcohol to 21 or whatever it is they are considering. So now under 16's can practice safe sex yet you have to be over 18 to legally drink a drop of vodka? I fail to see how this works. Most people experiment with alcohol and get drunk a fair while before they experiment with sex. I think most people admit to getting drunk on the park before they lost their virginity.
Generally, Thumbs Up Though.
Hence why I oppose this move. It's an admission that policies have failed. And the way they go about these things is extremely sinister. Parental consent will almost certainly not be required for this. I worry about the way parents are being undermined by government. Why is New Labour trying to take over the role of parenting the nation's kids? Get rid of the age of consent? How the hell's that going to work?
Well....
Under 16yr olds can have sex; no one can stop them doing that.
Under 16 yr olds currently can get contraception free from GP
Soon under 16 yr olds will be able to get the pill from their pharmasist after a 10 minute talk.
It is easier than ever for people to have sex under the age of 16. The age of consent has no relevance anymore; no significance.
Unless we are going to turn back all the changes that have happened (parental consent, free contraception) then there is no real point to the age of consent anymore.
Is there?
I agree with you that it isn't right for under 16 year olds to be having sex; but many of us did it and we are no worse off for it are we? By having the age of consent set, it doesn't influence a teenager's decision of when they are going to have sex. Not one of my friends (and I have never heard of it) think oh Im 15, me and my boyfriend want sex but opps, it's illegal we will wait. No one does that; or very few. It has no relevance; not now, not ever. Never has done, never will do. So what is the point in setting yet another rule and regulation for teenagers to abide by; when they don't abide by it in the first place.
Yeah, I can more than see where you are coming from in regards to the likes of 30 yr olds with 14 yr olds. But generally; in most circumstances the age of consent has no signifance. Surely they would be better with a law which enforces the likes of elders with minors. Eh, it gets confusing.
Teenagers are protected by Gillick in cases of contraception and abortion, how is it so different getting it over the counter rather than seeing a GP for instance? The way I understand it is that there would still be a consultation to rule out risk factors.
Only a century ago youngsters were a great deal more immature and naive than their counterparts today. We need to accept that people start having sexual relations at an earlier age nowadays, and no reactionary morals-based law is going to stop that.
To say that ''they shouldn't be having sex in the first place'' is paramout to the Church arguing against the distribution of condoms in Africa because people shouldn't be sleeping around. It is an absurd, cruel and ultimately pointless position destined to total failure.
Take a guess which line the parents would agree with.
Maybe if you had actually had any girls wanting to have sex with you when you were 15, you would feel differently.
how many under 16 yr olds (not just under 16 i know, but thats what we're on about) use condoms to stop themselves getting pregnant?
now weigh that up with how many use a condom to remain in good sexual health....
if girls are on the pill, i think its less likely they'll be worried about using a condom, which will inflate STD cases more than ever
i know when i was 15, i had been with my fella for 2 years and if we didnt use a condom, my 1st worry was pregnancy, not herpes!
there's no easy solution to be honest, but safe sex isnt ALL about protecting against unwanted pregnancies
Not quite. Mine is about caring for others, admitting to the realities of life and working with people to try to make the best out of a situation.
Incidentally by letting them obtain the pill you are in effect giving them the chance to take responsibility for their actions.
Frankly, your attitude is disgusting and nauseating.
I suspect yhose parents who had a heart and an ounce of humanity and rationality in them would go with mine.
Exactly. The first thing my dad said when he found out that I lost my virginity underage wasn't, "what the hell were you doing having sex anyway, you stupid girl" it was "did you use protection?".
I'm sure they'd rather their kids were being safe when they had sex, including taking the pill to stop themselves getting pregnant, than going out and having sex completely unprotected and putting themselves at risk. Parents aren't likely to want their kids to "suffer the consequences".
... and just to make sure that you get "punished" for having the temerity to enjoy sex, I am going to make damned sure that yuo can't protect yourself?
So, taking the pill isn't "taking responsibility" then?
The one which offers their child the greatest protection.
Sure, my first line is "don't do it". My second is "but if you do, make sure you use protection". I'd say that was infinitely more sensible that "don't do it but if you do then tough shite matey you're on your own"...
:yes:
If under 16s are going to be having sex, yes, protection should be there for them to use. However, I think we should be pushing condoms far more, as they offer protection against STIs, which the pill doesn't.
Ah but that's different. Stargalaxy only wants people to have the choice to do things that he agrees with.
I reckon removing the age of consent is stupid though. I think it's always a good idea to have something technically illegal, even though the courts use their discretion as to when it's enforced. No-one will prosecute a 16 year old for sleeping with a 15 year old (in theory), but they would prosecute a 30 year old, and I think that's right.
I think that's the reason for needing a consultation, rather than just buying the stuff over the counter. They might be dubious about giving them to an under-16 year old who doesn't claim to be in a relationship for example, since this is generally who the pill is aimed at (except as additional protection to a condom).
I don't think the age of consent should be scrapped though as it offers a guideline for minors and elders to follow. If it was scrapped it would be telling a 30 year old that it is ok to have sex with a 13/14 year old and it isn't.
Not many kids wait until they are 16+ to have sex, raging hormones kick in and they do whats natural, some feel ready for sex younger than 16 and others not until they are alot older but the guideline is a good thing to have IMO.
You'd hope they might try a few sensible things like giving out free condoms with the pill, making the point that the condoms do more than the pill in the line of protection
Not that I hold out much hope, we are talking about a system where 99% of it can't manage to offer decent protection for those with latex allergies....
And if you can't afford a trip to the gyno, oh fucking well. Best save that money you're not spending on the docs for an accidental kid.
Would one be able to choose what pill? Such as ones for shorter/less/no periods, or lower dose hormones? Or would it be just a handfull of generalized pills they could prescribe?