Explicit ovaries Image: Jhayne
The pill. For something so tiny it’s very demanding. Not only does it come with a schedule, there are several hoops to jump through before it can be obtained. Of course these hoops are inconveniences rather than any kind of battle to the contraception. An appointment with your GP, who will take your blood pressure, wonder aloud if you smoke and then possibly try to haggle you down to a cheaper pill than the Yasmin you specifically requested.
Pharmaceutical must-read Pulse magazine recently published the evaluation of a pilot scheme that allowed pharmacists to offer women over 16 the contraceptive pill without first seeing a GP. One participating pharmacy found a significant drop in demand for the morning after pill. The conclusion from this pilot, which 5 pharmacies in London boroughs Lambeth and Southwark participated in since 2008, is that girls as young as 13 should be allowed access to the pill from pharmacies without a prescription.
Pharmaceutical must-read Pulse magazine recently published the evaluation of a pilot scheme that allowed pharmacists to offer women over 16 the contraceptive pill without first seeing a GP. One participating pharmacy found a significant drop in demand for the morning after pill. The conclusion from this pilot, which 5 pharmacies in London boroughs Lambeth and Southwark participated in since 2008, is that girls as young as 13 should be allowed access to the pill from pharmacies without a prescription.
Cue the usual suspects throwing their hands in the air like they just don’t care. Only they do care, a lot – the implication of this is that those in support of 13 year olds and older having access to the pill don’t care.
Like all medication the pill is not without risks, it can slightly increase the possibility of stroke, deep vein thrombosis and cardio-vascular disease. The possible side effects mentioned on the side of a packet of Paracetamol are rashes, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia and liver and kidney damage.
The positive effects the pill can have are clearer skin, lighter periods, and a decreased risk of anaemia. The pill can also reduce symptoms of endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome. Pelvic inflammatory disease, dysmenorrhea and premenstrual syndrome can also be alleviated by the pill.
You see the pill is not just a medication that reduces the risk of one night of passion resulting in an infant. Yes it is a form of contraception but it is unwise to regard it purely as such especially if we are planning on making it available to a wider demographic.
As with another pilot scheme that gives teenage girls access to the implant as a form of contraception it is only the medical ravages hormones can have on the teenage body that are addressed, and possibly significantly eased. Neither contraceptive device protects from STIs.
Let’s set aside for a moment (or for the rest of this article because I tire of Dorries quotes) the question of the peculiar idea of parental rights regarding when their offspring can and can’t have sex. Mainly because funnily enough – even without having children myself – I can guess that permission is never going to come, nor be asked for.
The pill and the implant are hormonal treatments that could and can make puberty a lot easier. There is no reason a teenage girl should have to endure years of acne, PMS or other uncomfortable side effects of hormones gone wild that can result in withdrawal and depression with treatments available. There’s no reason the pill and the implant have to be regarded as birth control only.
Our hormones and our children’s hormones have already been altered from the meat and dairy we consume. If you have acne or various other signs of hormone imbalance why would you not attempt to have said imbalance corrected?
The argument that this suggested scheme is a bid to make our female children available for men and boys to have heterosexual sex without consequences is not the case. I doubt the NHS regularly holds meetings regarding the sexual availability of the nation’s girls. There’s a reason beyond PR as to why there’s no NHS pilot scheme called Operation Town Bike.
However this reaction, that this is a symptom of a society drenched in sex is in turn symptomatic of a nation drenched in suspicion and low expectations. We have low expectations of British teenagers, we have low expectations of British parents and more often than not low expectations are met.
We present sex as something tantamount to pornography. Hence when schemes making the pill and the implant accessible to teenage girls are launched they are screamed down as a sign of raunch culture. Without questioning teenage girls’ perfectly natural urges. Without questioning teenage boys’ perfectly understandable desire to perhaps not have sex.
Is this the worrying thing? That teenagers might answer their biological urges safely? That teenage girls might receive medication that happens relieves them of acute PMS, heavy periods and reduces the possibility of pregnancy? If that is keeping you up at night how about I add this to your concerns; in January the BBC were recently criticised for producing a sex education film for PSHE classes that was apparently similar to a “blue movie” according to Conservative MP Andrea Leadsom.
Schools Minister Nick Gibb summoned the BBC to explain the film. Which shows a cartoon of an adult couple making love, blue (as in the colour) computer-generated images of penetration and footage of a man and then a woman in a shower explaining the changes in their bodies.
Who is it, exactly, that can’t tell the difference between pornography, education and sex now?
Squeamish Kate
Like all medication the pill is not without risks, it can slightly increase the possibility of stroke, deep vein thrombosis and cardio-vascular disease. The possible side effects mentioned on the side of a packet of Paracetamol are rashes, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia and liver and kidney damage.
The positive effects the pill can have are clearer skin, lighter periods, and a decreased risk of anaemia. The pill can also reduce symptoms of endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome. Pelvic inflammatory disease, dysmenorrhea and premenstrual syndrome can also be alleviated by the pill.
You see the pill is not just a medication that reduces the risk of one night of passion resulting in an infant. Yes it is a form of contraception but it is unwise to regard it purely as such especially if we are planning on making it available to a wider demographic.
As with another pilot scheme that gives teenage girls access to the implant as a form of contraception it is only the medical ravages hormones can have on the teenage body that are addressed, and possibly significantly eased. Neither contraceptive device protects from STIs.
Let’s set aside for a moment (or for the rest of this article because I tire of Dorries quotes) the question of the peculiar idea of parental rights regarding when their offspring can and can’t have sex. Mainly because funnily enough – even without having children myself – I can guess that permission is never going to come, nor be asked for.
The pill and the implant are hormonal treatments that could and can make puberty a lot easier. There is no reason a teenage girl should have to endure years of acne, PMS or other uncomfortable side effects of hormones gone wild that can result in withdrawal and depression with treatments available. There’s no reason the pill and the implant have to be regarded as birth control only.
Our hormones and our children’s hormones have already been altered from the meat and dairy we consume. If you have acne or various other signs of hormone imbalance why would you not attempt to have said imbalance corrected?
The argument that this suggested scheme is a bid to make our female children available for men and boys to have heterosexual sex without consequences is not the case. I doubt the NHS regularly holds meetings regarding the sexual availability of the nation’s girls. There’s a reason beyond PR as to why there’s no NHS pilot scheme called Operation Town Bike.
However this reaction, that this is a symptom of a society drenched in sex is in turn symptomatic of a nation drenched in suspicion and low expectations. We have low expectations of British teenagers, we have low expectations of British parents and more often than not low expectations are met.
We present sex as something tantamount to pornography. Hence when schemes making the pill and the implant accessible to teenage girls are launched they are screamed down as a sign of raunch culture. Without questioning teenage girls’ perfectly natural urges. Without questioning teenage boys’ perfectly understandable desire to perhaps not have sex.
Is this the worrying thing? That teenagers might answer their biological urges safely? That teenage girls might receive medication that happens relieves them of acute PMS, heavy periods and reduces the possibility of pregnancy? If that is keeping you up at night how about I add this to your concerns; in January the BBC were recently criticised for producing a sex education film for PSHE classes that was apparently similar to a “blue movie” according to Conservative MP Andrea Leadsom.
Schools Minister Nick Gibb summoned the BBC to explain the film. Which shows a cartoon of an adult couple making love, blue (as in the colour) computer-generated images of penetration and footage of a man and then a woman in a shower explaining the changes in their bodies.
Who is it, exactly, that can’t tell the difference between pornography, education and sex now?
Squeamish Kate
RSS Feed