Middle School Based Health Clinic to Offer Prescriptive Contraception - Without Parental Consent or Notification
Like many of you, I’m here at the annual conference of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities. (And if you’re here, and reading this, please do stop by and say hello – I’ll be at the AJOB table most of the weekend, and would love to put faces to names!) Hopefully unlike most of you, my brain is spinning and flying at twice its normal speed, stimulated beyond belief by all the amazing conversation going on here. Thus I found myself awake at 3:30am, deciding I might as well catch up on the internet, since sleep was apparently going to be elusive. (The 7:30am “meet the professor” breakfast ought to be even more fun on two hours of sleep!) It seems that, despite his fulltime job, as well as being exec editor, and co-manning the AJOB table with me at the meeting on top of it all, Sean’s been able to keep up on updating the bioethics newsfeed, and one story literally had me sitting up in bed going “whoa – that’s unexpected!”
Seems that the Portland, Maine school board approved, on Weds night, a measure that will allow students at King Middle School to gain access to prescription birth control methods without parental notification. It was a near-unanimous vote, justified by two very simple things:
- there are students being seen in the health center who are engaging in risky behaviour (unprotected sex)
- it has been shown, time and again, that providing access to birth control does not increase who is sexually active, only who is safely sexually active
Reaction, as you might expect, has been mixed, from utter outrage and threats of lawsuits and claims of violations of parental rights, to people saying that the reality is, not every student is receiving the sort of guidance at home necessary to make good sexual choices. (And to that, I would add, or receives good guidance and tosses it right out the window in a fit of pique and/or hormones.)
What might be most interesting about this decision is that the independently operated health care center (which offers things like immunizations, physicals, and other clinic-based medical care) says only about 5 of the 500 students at the school have identified themselves as sexually active. While I do realize that those who’re actually good at maths have ways of extrapolating from admitted rates of sexual activity actual (and typically higher) rates of sexual activity, I can’t imagine any sort of mathematical wizardry is going to make the number substantially higher. So it really is an offering of services to a limited number of students.
Several of us were sitting around a table earlier tonight, and the conversation drifted (thanks to a stress-relieving spermatozoa fellow blogger Andrea Kalfoglou was showing us) to sex education, and the average age boys and girls hit puberty. None of us knew off the tops of our heads when boys first start producing fertile ejaculate, but we did know that the average age of menarche has dropped to middle school ages – thus meaning that these middle school bodies are being hit by hormones at an age they perhaps might not have the wisdom necessary to handle the urges and inclinations. But at the same time, even though I have long been an advocate for free access to contraception in high schools, I find the idea of middle schools providing not only access to contraception but hormonal/prescription contraceptives slightly alarming.
While the clinic is independent of the school, and thus providing a service the students could receive if they went to a local Planned Parenthood, simply at easier access, I wonder at the prescription emphasis, and why other methods of birth control are not mentioned. Do they offer free condoms? What are they telling the students about safe sex? Is there some very specific and targeted situation going on they are trying to address, with only a few students – abuse, questionable relationships, accusations of rape, or some other need to provide this ease of access to prescription - motivating the measure? After all, as we all know from the endless education done in pharma adverts for hormonal birth control, it protects against pregnancy, not sexually transmitted infections.
-Kelly Hills
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.











comments
I too am troubled at the idea that "safe" sex only refers to preventing pregnancy. If I had a sexually active teenage daughter, pregnancy would not be at the top of my list of worries. There are some bad antibiotic-resistant STDs out there. Some of them can do permanent damage even as they are being treated.
And cutting parents out of the loop bothers me too, for many reasons. It looks like the assumption is made that parents are and should remain clueless about the reality of their own child's life. Nowadays it's very possible that the kids are behaving exactly the way the parents did at that age, so assumption of Ozzie and Harriet-type parents being shocked if told about their wild kids' behavior is a bit silly; to take it further, that parents should not be told, is even less defensible. Why make that assumption for a specific child, outside actual evidence of abusive behavior?
The larger reason why it bothers me is that there is a reason why BCPs are prescription-only. If a kid has symptoms of impending stroke, or blood clots, what is the likelihood that she will tell her mother? Or if Mom does take her to the doctor, that the kid will pipe up and offer that she is on BCPs - since it's been hammered into her that she has the right to privacy on this issue? Looks like Mom, who actually has responsibility before God and man for the well-being of her minor child, is supposed to stay in the dark, shut up, and pay the bills. So who is monitoring the kid for the possibility of these very serious side effects - a slight possibility, yes, but not zero? And if the parents are supposed to remain in blissful ignorance that the kid is having sex, who will put two and two together if she does start having symptoms of STDs? The school nurse?
- by Laura(southernxyl) on Oct 19, 2007 at 11:43 AM | link
Like you said, it protects against pregnancy, not disease. At that age kids need knowledge and guidance, not just contraception that enables them to have sex and learn the hard way. How about sex ed classes at an earlier age, or maybe parents actually talking to their kids and guiding them down the correct path.
- by Cary on Oct 19, 2007 at 12:06 PM | link
Okay. I'm seventeen and just started birth control myself. In middle school I didn't even think about having sex before marriage. Although 5 pregnancies in the last 7 years is a little scary for middle school-aged children, giving them birth control only gives them more of an incentive to actually have sex. They don't understand that birth control isn't 100% effective and it doesn't promise it will be safe towards anything. It's even worse that the school is giving it out without parental consent. I think this also gives children a chance to become more distant from authorities at a younger age. My mother knows; she brought me. I think letting the parent know will give them a chance to know and jsut talk to their child. not freak out, but be somewhat of a friend at the same time as a mother/father.
- by Kayla on Nov 1, 2007 at 11:41 AM | link
I think the pregnancies occuring suggest that some children are not waiting for explicit opportunitie to be distant from their parents, or have parents that would not provide them with the same kind of support. It seems to me that making birth control available is not greatly different from making condoms availabe--as they already are, over the counter. And the pill is a good deal more effective in preventing prganancy than condoms. Although of course both are necessary for safer sex if sex is going to occur. Does the presence of either or both make that sex more likely? I wouldn't assume so.
- by emily on Nov 2, 2007 at 9:04 AM | link