The morning after pill dilemma

[dibblywibbles]

Of course it was the right decision. and everyone should have a basic right to contraceptives. and if she had used a condom and it broke like she said why would there even be a moral discussion about it? because she's 14? that's the biggest load of bull I've ever heard. ok so maybe this question is making me a bit agitated. what is the responsibility of the government? to provide for its citizens, it's what we pay taxes for. requiring a punishment for being 14 and sexually active through consensual sex is monstrous. the reason they have ages of consent is to protect minors from pedophiles not to scare or punish them. We shouldn't have to regulate everything a private citizen does.

 

[Dags90]

Because there certainly aren't any serious repercussions to getting a back alley abortion, cause that can't kill you or anything.

Sometimes playing the righteous one can keep you alive, which is arguably better than having mommy and daddy get pissed at you.

His point was that if the girl chose to hide the sex from her parents, her only option for termination if she became pregnant would be an illegal abortion if they were required to inform the parents. There's no discernible benefit to informing the parents that wouldn't be outweighed by girls who wound up pregnant against their wishes because they didn't want their parents to find out.

OT: It's not even a real dilemma.

 

[spartan231490]

Here's a brief summary of where my questions stem from:

I am a final year pharmacy student currently studying in Scotland. During a shift working in a pharmacy a young girl aged 14 came into the pharmacy and requested the morning after pill (for anyone who may not know, the morning after pill is a free one time pill that will, ~80% of the time, prevent fertilization, therefore preventing pregnancy even after unprotected sex).

Also to inform you the legal age for sex in the UK is 16, if it is different where you live then presume that the girl was 2 years below the minimum age.

The girl went in for a consultation with the pharmacist and was found to pass all the criteria which is required in order to receive the pill (had unprotected sex, wasn't on any other relevant medication, etc etc). It turns out that she had been fooling around while a bit drunk with her also 14 year old boyfriend and the condom they used burst. After a discussion between myself and the pharmacist it was decided that to supply her with the pill was legal. In Scotland it is legal to provide the pill to 13 year olds and above as long as the pharmacist does not deem the situation to be inappropriate, such as if the boyfriend had been significantly older or abuse may have been suspected, WITHOUT the need to inform the parents or guardian.

Now there is a whole heap of ethical and moral questions here but there are two i want to ask of my fellow escapists.
1. Was this the right decision? (should the parents have been informed? should she have been declined the pill due to being underage)
2. Should the government be encouraging underage sexual activity by not only providing the morning after pill but also by not having any form of punishment doing so. (we did not inform the authorities as it was deemed to be "appropriate")

Of course it was the right decision. Teens are going to have sex, it's better for them to be doing it as safely as possible.
The gov't doesn't have to encourage, underage sexual activity, it's going to happen anyway. Also, according to my adolescent psychology textbook, providing free birth-control to teens, doesn't increase the likelyhood that they will have sex, it just increases the likelyhood that they will have safe sex, so if you believe that(makes sense to me) then there is no downside.

 

[Wolfram23]

I think it was the right decision to give her the pill. However, I can't say whether parents should have been told or not... I mean... that's a tough one. I don't think she should be having sex at that age, but then, at least she's smart enough to get the pill and also apparently use condoms.

 

[Jedoro]

Because there certainly aren't any serious repercussions to getting a back alley abortion, cause that can't kill you or anything.

Sometimes playing the righteous one can keep you alive, which is arguably better than having mommy and daddy get pissed at you.

His point was that if the girl chose to hide the sex from her parents, her only option for termination if she became pregnant would be an illegal abortion if they were required to inform the parents. There's no discernible benefit to informing the parents that wouldn't be outweighed by girls who wound up pregnant against their wishes because they didn't want their parents to find out.

OT: It's not even a real dilemma.

I can see what his point was, but mine is that mistakes shouldn't be hidden. If the girl had to tell her parents and took the pill, yeah they'd be mad but if they weren't idiots they'd learn to trust her more, specifically for owning up to a mistake. Otherwise, they'd find out eventually when she had the kid, or got hospitalized or killed from an unsafe abortion. Then they'd be mad about two things, or not mad because they're too busy mourning.

 

[Matt_LRR]

Because there certainly aren't any serious repercussions to getting a back alley abortion, cause that can't kill you or anything.

Sometimes playing the righteous one can keep you alive, which is arguably better than having mommy and daddy get pissed at you.

You missed my point.

(and Dags90 has subsequently clarified it)

If you penalize kids with the threat of punishment for pursuing safe contracetive options, then you incentivize shitty decuision making.

Alot of kids are terrified of what their parents and peers will think, and ashamed of the situation they're in. The last thing you want to do is make that situation worse. The potential gains to the health and well being of kids, by offering unrestricted access to sexual health solutions, is vastly preferable to the potential harm done by insisting that the parents or law enforcement be told.

Yeah, it's not great that we should keep these things secret, but it's much worse to introduce the treat that the situation will NOT be kept secret, thereby pushing many young people towards potentially life-threatening situations.

It's more important that these kids get the medical treatment they need than to worry about punishing them for poor judgement.

-m

I can see what his point was, but mine is that mistakes shouldn't be hidden. If the girl had to tell her parents and took the pill, yeah they'd be mad but if they weren't idiots they'd learn to trust her more, specifically for owning up to a mistake.

The flaw in this is that it assumes people aren't idiots.

Otherwise, they'd find out eventually when she had the kid, or got hospitalized or killed from an unsafe abortion. Then they'd be mad about two things, or not mad because they're too busy mourning.

Or, if you just give the kid the pill, no one ever finds out, and the kid lives happily to see another day while learning a valuable lesson about how fucking terrifying a pregnancy scare is. You don't force a life-changing decision in the middle of a crisis.

 

[Dags90]

I can see what his point was, but mine is that mistakes shouldn't be hidden. If the girl had to tell her parents and took the pill, yeah they'd be mad but if they weren't idiots they'd learn to trust her more, specifically for owning up to a mistake. Otherwise, they'd find out eventually when she had the kid, or got hospitalized or killed from an unsafe abortion. Then they'd be mad about two things, or not mad because they're too busy mourning.

Unfortunately idiots (and worse) have children and wind up parents. It's not like it not being required would preclude the option of the girl choosing to tell her parents, if she thought they might trust her more for it. And I think it would say more if she decided freely to come out with the information than the parents being informed by the pharmacy. Because if she went to the pharmacy first she probably wasn't keen on telling her parents and anyone would recognize that.

 

[LiftYourSkinnyFists]

Here's a brief summary of where my questions stem from:

I am a final year pharmacy student currently studying in Scotland. During a shift working in a pharmacy a young girl aged 14 came into the pharmacy and requested the morning after pill (for anyone who may not know, the morning after pill is a free one time pill that will, ~80% of the time, prevent fertilization, therefore preventing pregnancy even after unprotected sex).

Also to inform you the legal age for sex in the UK is 16, if it is different where you live then presume that the girl was 2 years below the minimum age.

The girl went in for a consultation with the pharmacist and was found to pass all the criteria which is required in order to receive the pill (had unprotected sex, wasn't on any other relevant medication, etc etc). It turns out that she had been fooling around while a bit drunk with her also 14 year old boyfriend and the condom they used burst. After a discussion between myself and the pharmacist it was decided that to supply her with the pill was legal. In Scotland it is legal to provide the pill to 13 year olds and above as long as the pharmacist does not deem the situation to be inappropriate, such as if the boyfriend had been significantly older or abuse may have been suspected, WITHOUT the need to inform the parents or guardian.

Now there is a whole heap of ethical and moral questions here but there are two i want to ask of my fellow escapists.
1. Was this the right decision? (should the parents have been informed? should she have been declined the pill due to being underage)
2. Should the government be encouraging underage sexual activity by not only providing the morning after pill but also by not having any form of punishment doing so. (we did not inform the authorities as it was deemed to be "appropriate")

You have no right to tell her parents and the government has no real right to prevent under age sex, It's debated all the time and it's a worthless debate kids are going to get their freak on regardless and durex will always be low quality plastic.


EDIT: And I don't mean plastic, it's rubber.

 

[Matt_LRR]

Here's a brief summary of where my questions stem from:

I am a final year pharmacy student currently studying in Scotland. During a shift working in a pharmacy a young girl aged 14 came into the pharmacy and requested the morning after pill (for anyone who may not know, the morning after pill is a free one time pill that will, ~80% of the time, prevent fertilization, therefore preventing pregnancy even after unprotected sex).

Also to inform you the legal age for sex in the UK is 16, if it is different where you live then presume that the girl was 2 years below the minimum age.

The girl went in for a consultation with the pharmacist and was found to pass all the criteria which is required in order to receive the pill (had unprotected sex, wasn't on any other relevant medication, etc etc). It turns out that she had been fooling around while a bit drunk with her also 14 year old boyfriend and the condom they used burst. After a discussion between myself and the pharmacist it was decided that to supply her with the pill was legal. In Scotland it is legal to provide the pill to 13 year olds and above as long as the pharmacist does not deem the situation to be inappropriate, such as if the boyfriend had been significantly older or abuse may have been suspected, WITHOUT the need to inform the parents or guardian.

Now there is a whole heap of ethical and moral questions here but there are two i want to ask of my fellow escapists.
1. Was this the right decision? (should the parents have been informed? should she have been declined the pill due to being underage)
2. Should the government be encouraging underage sexual activity by not only providing the morning after pill but also by not having any form of punishment doing so. (we did not inform the authorities as it was deemed to be "appropriate")

You have no right to tell her parents and the government has no real right to prevent under age sex, It's debated all the time and it's a worthless debate kids are going to get their freak on regardless and durex will always be low quality plastic.


EDIT: And I don't mean plastic, it's rubber.

(it's latex. Technically not rubber, either)

-m

 

[Jedoro]

I can see what his point was, but mine is that mistakes shouldn't be hidden. If the girl had to tell her parents and took the pill, yeah they'd be mad but if they weren't idiots they'd learn to trust her more, specifically for owning up to a mistake.

The flaw in this is that it assumes people aren't idiots.

Otherwise, they'd find out eventually when she had the kid, or got hospitalized or killed from an unsafe abortion. Then they'd be mad about two things, or not mad because they're too busy mourning.

Or, if you just give the kid the pill, no one ever finds out, and the kid lives happily to see another day while learning a valuable lesson about how fucking terrifying a pregnancy scare is. You don't force a life-changing decision in the middle of a crisis.

You're making the same mistake in assuming people aren't idiots, which she clearly is if she got drunk and fucked her boyfriend at 14. Something I've personally learned is that authority intervention helps you learn lessons much better than just getting away with it, and I've had one of those "pregnancy scares" with a girlfriend back in high school.

 

[tomtom94]

You can't deny her the pill, teenagers will always end up fooling around, she and her boyfriend at least took the right precautions.

The problem is if some continue the draconian attitude towards it in the media, will teenage pregnancy rates lower or rise?

(Freedom all the way but you have to put up with the consequences, and not expect the welfare state to give you a council house...as currently happens in the UK...)

 

[Woodsey]

Of course it was the right decision. What's the better option? Letting a girl get pregnant?

And no, parents shouldn't have been informed either.

 

[SirDoom]

I can see what his point was, but mine is that mistakes shouldn't be hidden. If the girl had to tell her parents and took the pill, yeah they'd be mad but if they weren't idiots they'd learn to trust her more, specifically for owning up to a mistake. Otherwise, they'd find out eventually when she had the kid, or got hospitalized or killed from an unsafe abortion. Then they'd be mad about two things, or not mad because they're too busy mourning.

This particular side of this debate is actually not related to abortion at all. It's "Should teenagers have the right to keep a few secrets from their parents."

Parents don't own their children. The kids (teens especially) are entitled to live their own life without having to get parental approval for every little thing they do. If the parent puts shackles on the teen, then the teen will grow to resent them and, worse yet, not be able to make his or her own choices in the future.

If she want's to tell them, fine. But she shouldn't be forced to, and she certainly shouldn't be forced to sit by and let a pharmacist tell them for her. That, to me, is a breach of medical confidentiality.

---

Anyway, in my opinion, if she was mature enough to do the act and then, realizing her mistake, try to correct it as fast as possible, she deserves the pill with no questions asked. Hopefully she'll learn to use protection because of it, and won't have to deal with massive parental disapproval in addition to the stress she's already under.

 

[TheRealCJ]

Because there certainly aren't any serious repercussions to getting a back alley abortion, cause that can't kill you or anything.

Sometimes playing the righteous one can keep you alive, which is arguably better than having mommy and daddy get pissed at you.

His point was that if the girl chose to hide the sex from her parents, her only option for termination if she became pregnant would be an illegal abortion if they were required to inform the parents. There's no discernible benefit to informing the parents that wouldn't be outweighed by girls who wound up pregnant against their wishes because they didn't want their parents to find out.

OT: It's not even a real dilemma.

I can see what his point was, but mine is that mistakes shouldn't be hidden. If the girl had to tell her parents and took the pill, yeah they'd be mad but if they weren't idiots they'd learn to trust her more, specifically for owning up to a mistake. Otherwise, they'd find out eventually when she had the kid, or got hospitalized or killed from an unsafe abortion. Then they'd be mad about two things, or not mad because they're too busy mourning.

I think when he said "righteous one" he meant the pill-supplying pharmacist.

Because if had the choice of giving a young girl a morning after pill without informing her parents, or taking the high-and-mighty route and risk scaring her and doing something even more stupid, I'll take the low road every time.

 

[Matt_LRR]

I can see what his point was, but mine is that mistakes shouldn't be hidden. If the girl had to tell her parents and took the pill, yeah they'd be mad but if they weren't idiots they'd learn to trust her more, specifically for owning up to a mistake.

The flaw in this is that it assumes people aren't idiots.

Otherwise, they'd find out eventually when she had the kid, or got hospitalized or killed from an unsafe abortion. Then they'd be mad about two things, or not mad because they're too busy mourning.

Or, if you just give the kid the pill, no one ever finds out, and the kid lives happily to see another day while learning a valuable lesson about how fucking terrifying a pregnancy scare is. You don't force a life-changing decision in the middle of a crisis.

You're making the same mistake in assuming people aren't idiots, which she clearly is if she got drunk and fucked her boyfriend at 14. Something I've personally learned is that authority intervention helps you learn lessons much better than just getting away with it, and I've had one of those "pregnancy scares" with a girlfriend back in high school.

Umm, no, I'm not.

In fact, I'm advocating a position that assumes poor decision making.

You acknowledge that she made a poor choice in getting drunk and having sex... so you want to add a dis-incentive to choosing emergency contraception? Making the poor choice of "trying to hide it" more attractive, and you assume that these girls - who have already shown a lack of judgement are going to make the "right choice"?

The girl put herself in a bad position - you want to make it easier for her to make the decision that best protects her safety. And that means letting her keep her activities secret to incentivize her getting the help she needs.

-m

 

[Phoenix09215]

I think you were right to give her the pill. If you don't and she is pregnant then you're either going to force her in to making a very hard decision (whetehr to abort or not) or effect the next few years of her life. I'm not saying it would be your fault, although no doubt she would blame you for not giving her the pill.

As for telling her parents, I think that has to be a yes. If you're going to supply an underage person with a method of contraception, I think you should have to clarify with their parent or guardian first. If you don't do that then you're only supplying these people with an easy way out of their own responsibilities.

 

[katsumoto03]

2. Should the government be encouraging underage sexual activity by not only providing the morning after pill but also by not having any form of punishment doing so. (we did not inform the authorities as it was deemed to be "appropriate")

No. Underage sex = bad!

And yes, you did the right thing. You should have also checked her out with the authorities to see if it was abuse/rape or not.

 

[Denamic]

Because the government has every right to be involved in people's sex lives.

 

[MC K-Mac]

OF COURSE it was the right decision.

1. It's none of your goddamned business what led up to the young girl needing the pill.
2. She needed it, therefore you provided it. End of fucking question.

I'm glad you made the right decision, but your second question is based on a fallacy. Providing birth control does NOT encourage young people to have sex. This is the same thinking that causes the Vatican and American Bible thumpers to campaign against providing teens with condoms, with all the attendant misery that causes. We should make birth control free and easily available to ALL, without questions, and without judgement. The world will be a much better and happier place for it.