contraception pill given in schools

1jim

j.e.j. wrote: »

Well, most adults requiring GP services also have to plan it around their work, etc. Or do we expect our employers to provide family planning during work hours? I don't think so! Family Planning Clinics are open in the evenings. Yes, someone might tell the parent where they were. They are 14 and their parents are responsible for them and are probably concerned!!


14 year olds having smear tests in their school lunch break? The Daily Mail would have a field day :rotfl: No but seriously, there's something badly wrong if this is the norm these days.

But 14 year olds are entitled to access healthcare in confidence.

There is a huge problem with teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, these programmes are designed to minimise that risk to children

No, 14 year olds will be advised on smears by the school nurse but this will not be carried out at school, in England I think the age for smear tests under the national programme is 25 but I may be wrong about that

j.e.j.

1jim wrote: »

But 14 year olds are entitled to access healthcare in confidence.

There is a huge problem with teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, these programmes are designed to minimise that risk to children

No, 14 year olds will be advised on smears by the school nurse but this will not be carried out at school, in England I think the age for smear tests under the national programme is 25 but I may be wrong about that

If they're having sex at 14 but not being checked for cervical cancer till they're 25 that's another problem!!

And as I implied before, a pregnancy doesn't occur through ignorance these days. Kids know to get condoms. They choose for whatever reason not to and that's how pregnancies occur. They need to start educating young girls that motherhood is not the best option for them at that young age, not dishing out the Pill like sweeties.

If the girl seriously wants the Pill she should go to the GP or to the clinic.

1jim

verysillyguy06 wrote: »

It is not the law....can you show me where every teenager is entitled to have pills handed under Gillick ?

Every teenager is not entitled to the pill, just as every adult is not entitled to it. What they are entitled to is an assessment of their need and their competency to consent to treatment the same way as every adult is. The difference being that they are assessed for competence to consent without parental knowledge or that parent consenting on their behalf. You would no more give every teenager the pill than you would give every adult diazepam who walks though the door asking for it



Gillick competence is a term originating in England and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (16 years or younger) is able to consent to his or her own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge.
The standard is based on a decision of the House of Lords in the case Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1985] 3 All ER 402 (HL). The case is binding in England and Wales, and has been approved in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Similar provision is made in Scotland by The Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991. In Northern Ireland, although separate legislation applies, the then Department of Health and Social Services Northern Ireland stated that there was no reason to suppose that the House of Lords' decision would not be followed by the Northern Ireland Courts.



It is lawful for doctors to provide contraceptive advice and treatment without parental consent providing certain criteria are met. These criteria, known as the Fraser Guidelines, were laid down by Lord Fraser in the House of Lords' case and require the professional to be satisfied that:
the young person will understand the professional's advice;
the young person cannot be persuaded to inform their parents;
the young person is likely to begin, or to continue having, sexual intercourse with or without contraceptive treatment;
unless the young person receives contraceptive treatment, their physical or mental health, or both, are likely to suffer;
the young person's best interests require them to receive contraceptive advice or treatment with or without parental consent.
Although these criteria specifically refer to contraception, the principles are deemed to apply to other treatments, including abortion. Although the judgement in the House of Lords referred specifically to doctors, it is considered to apply to other health professionals, including nurses. It may also be interpreted as covering youth workers and health promotion workers who may be giving contraceptive advice and condoms to young people under 16, but this has not been tested in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

Or this
http://www.lawteacher.net/medical-law/essays/gillick-competence-essay.php

Or this
http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=x20050425225920411760

http://oro.open.ac.uk/15910/1/Cornock_-_Fraser_guidelines_article.pdf

http://www.gponline.com/Clinical/article/1057179/Medico-legal---Understanding-Gillick-competence/

verysillyguy06

1jim wrote: »

Gillick competence is a term originating in England and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (16 years or younger) is able to consent to his or her own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge.
The standard is based on a decision of the House of Lords in the case Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1985] 3 All ER 402 (HL). The case is binding in England and Wales, and has been approved in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Similar provision is made in Scotland by The Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991. In Northern Ireland, although separate legislation applies, the then Department of Health and Social Services Northern Ireland stated that there was no reason to suppose that the House of Lords' decision would not be followed by the Northern Ireland Courts.



It is lawful for doctors to provide contraceptive advice and treatment without parental consent providing certain criteria are met. These criteria, known as the Fraser Guidelines, were laid down by Lord Fraser in the House of Lords' case and require the professional to be satisfied that:
the young person will understand the professional's advice;
the young person cannot be persuaded to inform their parents;
the young person is likely to begin, or to continue having, sexual intercourse with or without contraceptive treatment;
unless the young person receives contraceptive treatment, their physical or mental health, or both, are likely to suffer;
the young person's best interests require them to receive contraceptive advice or treatment with or without parental consent.
Although these criteria specifically refer to contraception, the principles are deemed to apply to other treatments, including abortion. Although the judgement in the House of Lords referred specifically to doctors, it is considered to apply to other health professionals, including nurses. It may also be interpreted as covering youth workers and health promotion workers who may be giving contraceptive advice and condoms to young people under 16, but this has not been tested in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

Or this
http://www.lawteacher.net/medical-law/essays/gillick-competence-essay.php

Or this
http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=x20050425225920411760

http://oro.open.ac.uk/15910/1/Cornock_-_Fraser_guidelines_article.pdf

http://www.gponline.com/Clinical/article/1057179/Medico-legal---Understanding-Gillick-competence/

So, you agree it is nonsense then and posters do not understand it properly as shown on this thread

1jim

verysillyguy06 wrote: »

So, you agree it is nonsense then and posters do not understand it properly as shown on this thread

I can't comment on other posters understanding but I believe my understanding is sound and within legislation.

verysillyguy06

1jim wrote: »

I can't comment on other posters understanding but I believe my understanding is sound and within legislation.

? Posting the links show your understanding?


It shows google skills, nothing else ....

You did not answer my question

j.e.j.

I suppose if I have 'something against' anything, it's the culture that's come about, not the school nurse! I may be in the minority, but that doesn't make me ignorant.

They shouldn't be getting stds when they are children because children should not be having sex. I am not so naive to think that it never happens, but casually offering the Pill is normalising something that should not actually be occurring. 14 year olds needing contraception should be the exception not the norm!!

1jim

I don't get your question, you ask me to answer about someone elses understanding... I clearly can't comment on a persons understanding of legislation

I can comment on my understanding and it is consistent with the links posted above, you asked for reference to the law, the links above site the original case, the appeal and the house of lords ruling. Not sure what else you want

verysillyguy06

1jim wrote: »

I don't get your question, you ask me to answer about someone elses understanding... I clearly can't comment on a persons understanding of legislation

I can comment on my understanding and it is consistent with the links posted above, you asked for reference to the law, the links above site the original case, the appeal and the house of lords ruling. Not sure what else you want

You made a comment after mine on that it was nonsense. You then stated that it was the law....you never asked me for clarification what I meant, did you?

The OP was concerned and asked if it was ok that pills are just handed out and someone said, yes under Gillick...which is nonsense.

Do you still maintain that it is?

Sorry it may appear that way but I am not really trying to pick on you but it is a wrong understanding that is ripe on here

1jim

j.e.j. wrote: »

They shouldn't be getting stds when they are children because children should not be having sex. I am not so naive to think that it never happens, but casually offering the Pill is normalising something that should not actually be occurring. 14 year olds needing contraception should be the exception not the norm!!

But it is the exception, most 14 year olds are not on the pill. Most 14 year olds are not having sex. In any given school the majority of 14 year olds are not using contraception, it is the minority who are sexually active, it is the minority who need contraception, but it doesn't mean that contraception shouldn't be available in school for this minority, one unwanted teenage pregnancy is too many, one case of herpes in a 14 year old is too many. It's just that the media, the mail and the like would have you believe all teenagers are having sex and orgies. That's not the reality