The morning after pill dilemma

[scorrishbeef]

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")

 

[ajofflight]

[li]Yes, it probably was the right decision. She shouldn't have been declined the pill, because, though it's not certain, we don't need another pregnant teenager[/li]
[li]I think that the situation was dealt with exactly as it needed to be. I hope, however, that she stays away from sexual activity, until she's of the legal age.[/li]

 

[Nimcha]

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")

I don't get this point, how is this encouraging underage sexual activity? Not doing this will only mean more pregnant underaged teens, they would still have as much sexual activity as ever.

 

[Corpse XxX]

i think you did the right thing to give her the pill..

But proper authorities should have been contacted so that she could have been checked out to see that it was not a rape or anything of that nature.
Her parents should also have been contacted, so that they could have had a sitdown with their kid and go through rights and wrongs and such..

 

[darth.pixie]

In my opinion, by the time you're confident enough to walk into a pharmacy and ask for the pill, you're pretty much old enough to receive it too. I had to buy them for a friend or another until they were 17 because they were too embarrassed to do it.

Her getting pregnant at 14 wouldn't have been better either. So yes, it was the right decision. Not giving it to her would have made her go someplace else to get it so you wouldn't have solved a thing.

And as for 2. Teenagers aren't known for their common sense. Despite the fact that pills exist, teenage pregnancy is still an issue so removing them will only add to the number of mothers that are still kids themselves. Teens will have sex with or without condom, with or without pill. It's what they do. Hormones, you know. At least they should have the means to prevent certain displeasures.

 

[SomeLameStuff]

Should she have been denied the pill? No. Last thing we need is another person who isn't ready to have a child.

I do think that authorities should be contacted though. Appropriate or not, she still broke the law for underage sex.

 

[APLovecraft]

girls in the uk are having sex younger and getting pregnant younger as well, it's all down to the kid's choices - if a parent tells their child to have protected sex and they don't it's not their parent's fault

in my opinion; kids are idiots and things like cheap, easy to get alcohol, and being able to get contraception and the morning after pill make it a lot harder for them to be careful and take precautions

 

[Matt_LRR]

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")

1. yes this was the right decision - Under no circumstances should a girl be denied access to contraceptives, regardless of age or situation. This is doubly true in situations of emergency contraception. What this girl did was act responsibly (in an attempt to rectify a lapse in judgement and unfortunate accident).

Regarding her being underage - statutory rape and consent laws are in place predominantly to prevent children from being taken advantage of by people in a position of power over them by nature of age or experience. It would be ludicrous to argue that these teens had sex non-consentually, and a grievous miscarriage of the spirit of consent laws to pursue legal action.

Furthermore - pharmacists should not be permitted to disclose any medical informaion about a teen seeking their help to the teen's parents without the express consent of the patient. Doing so, for one, breaches assumed medical confidentiality, and two, actively discourages teens from pursuing responsible contraceptive precautions. Teens are going to have sex anyhow - punishing them for trying to have safer sex is asinine.

2. the government should be doing exactly what it is - providing medical care, and contraceptive / safe sex options to kids that find themselves in a bad spot.

-m

 

[Jedoro]

I would've required that her parents be told. A 13 year old doesn't need to be raising a child, which is also why her parents should know what she's doing.

 

[TheRealCJ]

I thought they banned sex in scotland? the thought of all those naked Scotsmen was making everyone nauseous.

ha, but seriously, your boss/teacher/whatever was in the right, fourteen is one of those weird ages where it's easy to make a bad decision or for things to go pear-shaped quickly. It's pretty much our jobs as adults to help them mitigate the damage, while at the same time allowing them room to grow up and stop being idiot fourteen year olds.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

Underage sex cant be prevented, all you can do is make sure that they are safe. IF you didnt supplie the pill, then she would just be another teen pregnancy.

Although I agree with the descition made, you should have informed her parents.

 

[Matt_LRR]

I would've required that her parents be told. A 13 year old doesn't need to be raising a child, which is also why her parents should know what she's doing.

You're a 13 year old girl. You've just had sex for the first time, and now you're worried you might be pregant.

You know you can't raise a child, and you don't want one.

Going to get the morning after pill means your parents are going to be told. You'll get in trouble, they'll be angry at you and ashamed of you. You know you're going to be in deep shit.

Do you:

1. go get the pill anyhow
2. Hide the pregnancy and abort it with a coat hanger in an alley when you can't hide it any more.

Sometimes playing the righteous one has far more serious repurcussions than simply making the best of a bad situation.

-m

 

[Delta342]

I think it was right you guys gave her the pill (and to be fair I'm impressed that at 14 they used a condom and knew about the morning after pill) however I think the authorities/parents should have been contacted; reasons?

1) They aren't of legal age, fortunately they knew how to deal with it but still it should be brought to attention that it is not legal.

2) If they were drunk then where did they get the alcohol at the age of 14.

Oh and someone mentioned if you're confident to walk in and get the pill at 14 they should have it.. Have you not encountered a 14 year old who will honestly believe that someone will buy them or give them cigarettes, alcohol etc? Just what I think but I can take quite a severe view of these things (being old enough to have sex, drink, smoke (if I ever took it upon myself), etc)

But meh! Still pretty glad she knew enough to get the pill!

 

[ewhac]

Praise to the deities that be that this did not happen in the United States:

• [li]The teenagers' identities would have been revealed and exposed to public scorn;[/li]
  [li]The teenage boy would have been arrested and arraigned on charges of statutory rape;[/li]
  [li]You two would have been sacked;[/li]
  [li]You shortly thereafter would have been charged with obstruction of justice and contributing to the delinquency of a minor;[/li]
  [li]You would be receiving death threats from Christian terrorists.[/li]

 

[BreakfastMan]

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Also, that policy your government does not sound like it encourages underage sex. It just sounds like they are trying to help people who find themselves in an uncomfortable spot. Kids are smarter than we make them out to be sometimes.

 

[WeOwnTheSky]

I think that was the right decision. Although underage, if she was pregnant at 14 a whole new set of issues come into play. I'm pro life (against abortion), and I think that an abortion would be a highly likely outcome if she did become pregnant; taking the pill is better than being pregnant that young. My understanding of the morning after pill though is that it just prevents pregnancy, it is not a form of abortion...so yes, the pill was the right choice.

Being a girl, I would be embarrassed as hell and would not want my parents to find out I asked for the pill. They'd put me on house arrest for a very, very long time. From that perspective, I'd say no, the parents should not be informed.

On another note, if the girl is having sex at fourteen, there are a lot of things going on that maybe the parents shouldn't be ignorant of. It's a delicate developmental age...

 

[Jedoro]

I would've required that her parents be told. A 13 year old doesn't need to be raising a child, which is also why her parents should know what she's doing.

You're a 13 year old girl. You've just had sex for the first time, and now you're worried you might be pregant.

You know you can't raise a child, and you don't want one.

Going to get the morning after pill means your parents are going to be told. You'll get in trouble, they'll be angry at you and ashamed of you. You know you're going to be in deep shit.

Do you:

1. go get the pill anyhow
2. Hide the pregnancy and abort it with a coat hanger in an alley when you can't hide it any more.

Sometimes playing the righteous one has far more serious repurcussions than simply making the best of a bad situation.

-m

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.

 

[calvincaplan]

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")

I'm a first year med student and we were actually talking about this today. 30%-40% of teenagers have had sex before the age of 16 in England. Curing the "disease" of underage sex is impossible, so curing the "symptoms" (STDs and unwanted pregnancies) is all we can do.