Teenage girls to get contraceptive pill in pilot scheme
In a nutshell, there is a small pilot in Lambeth and Southwark to make oral contraceptives available from pharmacies rather than via a doctor.
I have read the article several times and I cannot find any specific reference to there being an upper age limit. Clicking through to the Q&A, I find that the scheme is available for any woman for whom an oral contraceptive is medically suitable. It doesn't take genius to work out that probably a 41-year old smoker would be refused oral contraception - but would be advised on more suitable methods. The Q&A says it isn't particularly aimed at women who don't have existing arrangements with their GP or Community Sexual Health team, so, in practice, it is aimed at much younger women. But there is nothing that specifically prevents a 30 year old accessing it, or even a 45+ woman, if they don't have existing contraceptive arrangements.*
I have several concerns that are partly addressed in the Q&A but not at all in the BBC article. This service is actually a contraceptive advice service which may lead to prescription of oral contraceptives. My instinct would be to say that for teenagers and any women who absolutely don't want to be pregnant under any circumstances, probably an injection or implant is more sensible than remembering to take a daily pill; also, it is extremely important to advise about barrier methods, for prevention of STIs which may cause infertility or other gynaecological malfunctions. None of this is discussed in the article.
Instead we get a rentaquote from the 'Christian Medical Fellowship', a self-appointed guardian of morals - in reality, some perverted dirty man who wants to control women's bodies, sexuality and fertility (sort of creep who ought to be locked up). He cites the lack of evidence that this will be effective. Gosh, it's a new scheme, it's being piloted! I guess that part of the pilot is to assess evidence which is yet to be collected. (I hope - one has little faith in post-implementation reviews actually happening!)
Before the quote attributed to him is the following paragraph:
To which I can only say - your point is?
The age of consent in England is 16 (in fact, careful reading of the statute makes it 13 in certain circumstances). I fully accept that fear of an unwanted pregnancy is a major obstacle for many women, but the quote assumes or implies that 16 year old women having sex is a bad thing. 16 year old women having sex under duress and with inadequate contraception and/or STI prevention is definitely a bad thing, but this paragraph implies that basically 16 year olds shouldn't have sex, shouldn't have contraceptive advice and shouldn't be on the Pill.
If there are persuasive arguments to suppress the sexuality of 16-year-olds, legislate it. I think in practice the Christians actually don't want people to have sex unless married (and probably then only for purposes of breeding) and they will do anything to chip away at the freedom we have nowadays to express and fulfil our sexuality.
Back in the real world, teenagers have sex absolutely irrespective of the law, and Religious Nutters. I welcome any move that tries to make this safer. I hope that there will be a full review of the pilot to see if, in practice, it has made the difference that is hoped, and whether it is cost-effective. I want it to determine which factors make the difference: opening hours and proximity of appointments, or are there more profound reasons eg scared of going to a judgemental GP who is a friend of the parents or whatever.
It seems that the BBC, in its efforts to be impartial, whenever there is an article on sexual health and reproduction always have to have refer to religious-oriented pressure group obsessed by other people's sex lives (one suspects as a result of their own sexual frustration).
Where's the quote from Lambeth Youth Council, where's the investigative reporting on the possible drawbacks of the scheme, some of which I have outlined? Oh, wait, that would require more effort than merely rewriting the Southwark PCT Press Release and reproducing** a quote from this CMF that was probably spoonfed to them.
It disgusts me that an issue that is complex and important is reduced to a trade of sound-bites. It's a disservice to accountability and democracy and ultimately does nothing to advance the cause of sexual health.
* I realise it will be rare but not freakish for women to embark on their first sexual relationship with a man late in life, or maybe they're in a new relationship after being with a man who is sterile (through vasectomy or chemotherapy, say) or maybe they've been using condoms to prevent STIs but are now in a stable relationship and want to rethink their options
** see what I did there!
