It seems there is a debate going on in Portland Maine about a policy proposal to offer middle school students birth control pills, even without telling the parents of the students.
Click here!


Questions for debate:

Would you support your school system in a decision to provide birth control pills to your children?

Would this policy step beyond the public schools bounds of authority?

Would you support your school system in a decision to provide birth control pills to your children?

Not applicable, sorry.

Would this policy step beyond the public schools bounds of authority?

Seeing as how Maine’s age of consent is 14, it does seem a bit strange that the school would be handing out BC to those under that age. Plus, the school is already handing out condoms, so BC pills/patches isn’t that big a leap. It does make me wonder what the heck is going on in Maine that so many kids 11-13 are sexually active. This editorial says that a study by the School Committee found that many of the kids didn’t have a (responsible?) adult in their life.



It is sad that kids have to grow up so fast. Is there really that big a problem with 11-13 year olds having sex? Your link states 5 out of 135 kids were sexually active. That doesn’t seem like a lot, but a quick scan of other available articles seem to characterize Portland, Maine as being a hotbed of pre-teen sexuality.

This proposal does require parents’ written consent, but not of a particular service, which is odd. I don’t think a school nurse should be prescribing birth control without a complete physical examination by a physician. There are complications with the pill and the patch, and they shouldn’t be handed out casually.

In the long run, a far better question would be is it worse for a 12 year old to be on birth control, or pregnant?

Questions for debate:

Would you support your school system in a decision to provide birth control pills to your children?

Absolutely not. Aside from the possible medical complications from not having complete medical records, the state simply should have little or no say as to the relationship between me and my minor children absent a clear criminal activity. Of course, the perception that this kind of program is needed would likely not arise if parents were exercising responsibility over their children,

Would this policy step beyond the public schools bounds of authority?
[/quote]

Yes, for the reasons above. Const scholars talk about a right of privacy. Since kids are not old enough to make their own decisions under the law, this is about my right of privacy in relation to my kids, and is none of the school's business.

I am iffy on the condom thing, but I can understand the need, so I will not debate that issue and cede to letting the schools hand them out. You do make a valid point though about the age of consent. It can be viewed as a mixed signal to the children, but that really isn't the issue here either. I don't think offering BC pills to children is neccessarily going to encourage them to become nymphomanics, so that really isn't my argument, but it won't help the matter either. What really concerns me is that the parent has to sign a general consent form so that the children can be treated at these medical centers in the schools, as I understand it. From that point on, the child can go to the center and get treated for any ailment that might come up, soon to possibly include the pill or the patch. Parenst will want to sign this consent form in case something happens at school such as a fall, or an exposure to some chemical in science class. If they don't sign it, do the children still get immediate care when they are sick or injured? If so, what is the purpose of the consent form? If not, is there a line-item veto type of clause that will require the school's medical staff to contact the parents about any and all visits to get permission before treating non-emergency care?

Furthermore do 11-13 year old children truly understand that these forms of contraceptive are not their best option for BC? Do they understand that if they are on the pill or the patch that they still need to use a condom? If they aren't legally responsible enough to make the decision on their own to have sex, what makes them legally responsible enough to fully understand contraceptives?



Yes it does, but it is a general consent form, after the parent signs it, it seems they sign away their right to know what is going on with their child. More investigation is needed on this point.



I am not going to deny the importance of protecting the child from becoming pregnant, I think the bigger issue here is should the government (the public schools) be in the business of determining what is important for the child in the absence of parental supervision? If mom and dad agree that their 11 year old daughter needs to be on BC, no one should have the right to override that decision, unless neglect can be proven. I think the schools precribing any type of prescription without consulting the parents is beyond the scope of the school's responsibility.

Maine is a strange state. If I lived there I'd drink as much as Christopher Hitchens. My boyfriend was a Mainite, up in Eastport. We visit his widowed father every Christmas. There's a small track of forest in the island on which his father resides. It's a primordial, unwelcoming place. Robert told me about half of the girls in his graduating class of that tiny town had had babies or were pregnant.

Portland is nicer, though. It's hard to say if BC is justified because it's really hard to get information on the sexual activities of underage kids. As for the school's authority, parents can block access to the clinic, but why would they want to do that? I'd rather support education for birth control in school than give kids access to BC (unless, maybe, there isn't a Planned Parenthood or similar clinic for miles around).

I think the schools could open themselves up to lawsuits. They kind of already risk it with their own health clinic, but giving out pills (do they perform examinations?) opens them up to different kinds of lawsuits.

That is a sticky wicket for those parents who don't want their child getting birth control, but do want their child to receive care in case of injury or illness. Parents shouldn't have to make that kind of choice. There should at least be a separate consent for the birth control medication.

From what I read, the student would be counciled about the dangers of having sex at such a young age (and, I would assume, the wisdom of using a condom even if the girl's on BC), and all the ramifications, but if the kid is determined, chances are they'll get the birth control. Though if 11 year olds are having sex, they obviously aren't too responsible to begin with!

My prediction is that this will be voted down.

Would you support your school system in a decision to provide birth control pills to your children?

Being child-free by choice, this is purely hypothetical. However, I will try to imagine myself in such a situation. First of all, let's look at the exact policy, as described in the link.



(Bold added for emphasis)

From what I can tell from this very brief article, somebody at the school is legally qualified to prescribe contraception. If I had to guess, I would say that it is a nurse practioner rather than a physician. In any case, I have to assume that it is a fully qualified health professional. (If not, then we obviously have a problem.) Given the assumption that the contraception would be dispensed under the proper medical guidelines, I would agree to have my child in such a program. Others who would disagree with me can opt to have the child not go to the health center.

Obviously it is better for children at this early an age not to be sexually active. However, I would much rather have my child be sexually active and take precautions against sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy than to have my child be sexually active with no protection. Again, it would would certainly be better if my child were to be honest with me about sexual activity; however, I would much prefer that my child be on contraception without my knowledge than to run the risk of unwanted pregnancy.

Overall, it would seem to be a reasonable policy which attempts to deal with some unpleasant realities.

Would this policy step beyond the public schools bounds of authority?

Good question. Some would say that public schools should provide academic education, and nothing else. However, the plain fact is that public schools provide for other needs all the time. The most obvious example would be school breakfast and lunch programs for students at risk for poor nutrition. One could extend this to other situations where students are at risk. In this case, they risk ruining their lives. Such a policy should definitely be combined with education which strongly promotes delaying sexual activity until a more appropriate age; however, it also has to deal with a very imperfect world, where many children lack halfway decent parenting.

I would not. That's wildly out of the bounds of the school. Some administrator quipped "I'd rather have a 13 year old girl on the pill than pregnant," and while I can't argue that point; how urintation slang poor a job are you doing as a parent when your 13 year old daughter is engaging in consensual sex that ends in a pregnancy?

I don't pretend for a second that teens don't have sex. I'm for condoms and for birth control. However, it is unbelievable to me that parents wouldn't be the ones explaining the ramifications, both emotional and physical, of sexual activity. Certainly the same educational system that is largely derided for failing our children shouldn't be perfoming the role of a parent especially in regards to sex! You want to have a class that discusses sex ed? Fine, I don't entrely agree but distribute condoms and birth control pills? Absolutely not.

The problem I have with your last statement is that the medical center should be used to provide medical care for those that fall ill, or get injured, or to dispense medication that parents send to the school from the family physician. The main issue I have with this policy is the exclusion of the parents in the decision making process. At some point in the discussion, the parents should be consulted, even if it is in a conference type setting with medical professionals to eductate both the child and the parents. If the parents are so much of a threat that medical professionals don't feel it to be in the child's best interest to consult the parents, the issue is bigger than what is being dealt with. At that point, the child should be referred to the state's child advocacy network to ensure the child's safety is addressed and the child possibly removed from the custody of the parents. If the parents are responsible enough to talk to their children about this subject, they may not be responsible enough to be parents.

On a more controversial point, would this policy create a slippery slope to providing government sponsored healthcare to students?

Edited to update:
I came across this story updating this issue: Click here!

I understand and agree about the parental role and our responsibilities to our children. However, I have had experience with a rather disturbing episode with a step daughter that leads me to be more open minded about the subject.

This young lady had fallen in with a very bad crowd. Likely due to a case of molestation by a long time family friend before I was even in the picture, she equated sex with caring and love from others. Her own father is a true Dead Beat Dad, despite my dislike of the term. Bottom line is that by the age of 13, she was turning tricks and engaging in other extremely dangerous behavior. She was soon diagnosed with, according to the examining physician, the worst case of Herpes he had seen in over ten years. Strangely, she was much more apt to listen to school administrators and staff than her own family.

The problem, as I see it, are those young adults and pre-teens that do not listen or care what their parents are trying to teach them. Perhaps if she had received proper instruction from another source, some of this may have been prevented. I am more concerned with education than actually providing Birth Control, but I think if properly and responsibly administered it could be of some benefit. I realize that this is an extreme case, but don't we already legislate to the lowest common denominator already?

Welcome to , Rhus!

Your post certainly supports reasons to facilitate sex education in the schools, however the underlying problem that the policy at King Middle School is that parents have to give permission for the health center to treat their children, and in doing so, the health center can prescribe medication including BC without notifying the parents. If the problem is that the parents are not good enough adult role models for the children to go to, then I think BC is the least of the child's problems. That child should then be taken from the custody of the parent because the state can't trust the parent to responsibly raise the child.

Scary how young we kids seem to be wanting to do more "grown-up" things. I say, this is something that should be happening in high schools, not middle schools. Of couse, what I say doesn't change a thing. Still, if the choice is there, don't give them birth control. If they get pregnant, they'll learn real quick not to be fooling around. It sounds harsh, but that's the way I see it. You won't stop kids, even ones that young, from doing what they will, and I see giving them contraceptives as facilitating the pre-teen sex. If there's the risk of getting pregnant, they might be a little more cautious. I walk around my high-school halls, and see maybe one pregnant girl, and I know others who already have had thier kids. Ask them if they'll do it again, they'll invariably tell you how stupid they were. Kids aren't stupid. We know the risks. We just have to learn about the consequences, not be coddled.

Yep, that'll teach 'em!



I can certainly understand why you would believe that. However, The American Academy of Pediatricians has documented that increased access does not lead to increased promiscuity. Likewise, The New England Journal of Medicine findings and the latest research findings also find no merit in the notion that increased awareness leads to greater sexual activity.



Kids aren't cognizant of that at all? Seriously?, you don't think kids have a "scare" or two? Or that they don't know the risk?



Is it about coddling or informing? Is the latter so wrong? What would be wrong with a comprehensive policy that covers abstinence and birth control? Support for a comprehensive sex education plan is very high.

Neb29- I believe you may be confusing S247's point. You'll notice that later in her post she recognizes the merits of teaching the children of consequences for irresponsible sexual activity. That sounds like some form of sex education to me. I am hopeful that she also advocates educating our youth about contraception. By the way, hard consequences can be the best preventive around.


Your following links are more troubling:


Could you please point out where in this linked article it claims that "increased access does not lead to increased promiscuity"? I don't see it.


Furthermore, did you mix the New England Journal link with something else? When I link it comes up on a web-site other than the Journal. Finally, your last link under "research findings" does claim that increased awareness does not necessarily lead to increased sexual activity. The problem is that you seem to now suggest that S247's previous post had a manifest issue with "awareness" when what she claimed she had a problem with was "distribution". In other words, you are responding to a claim that does not exist? Why?

I am in agreement with others who advocate keeping contraceptives of any kind out of the schools and especially in middle schools though I would agree some type of education should be given. I would rather it were not until high school.

Allowing things to happen out of ignorance hardly constitues "teaching" kids about things.



Yep, right in the hyperlinked portion:



Voila!



The site deals with the cervical cancer vaccine, though the topic had to do with sex education and comprehensive educational policy. If you look at the bottom of the page, you'll see the specific journal month and date of which the NEJM editorialized it's findings. Most specifically, September 22nd, 2005.



The problem with keeping it only at the high school level is that puberty doesn't just occur after the age of 16, which is the average age of a high school freshman. You also have to take into account that middle schoolers are bombarded with sexual imagery all the time. In light of those facts, we need a comprehensive plan. The National Association of Elementary School Principals has noted that need as well.




Like anything that is taught, time and building on simple basic knowledge, is a key way for kids to grow up and be able to handle complex/difficult situations.


Source.

Fair enough and thank you. I am confused though. Are you adovcating simply educating our youth or are you also proposing contraceptive distribution? IMO, this makes a difference.

On a related note, your link to the American Academy of Pediatricians raises at least one other question. The linked article references information from 2001. What body of knowledge in 2001 did they have available to them regards to whether contraception distribution encouraged younger kids to have sex? Were we really that far along to be able to definitavely state such?

Otherwise, I am now in agreement there needs to be an active, extended conversation with our youth starting in the middle school years about sexual activity. This represents a massive swing in what I have believed until now.

Hey, then, would you mind doing a favor for me? Could you explain where babies come from to my second-grader sister? She's 8, so it'll only be a few more years, so she better learn now. Yeah, she still thinks babies come out of mommy's stomach through her belly button. You'd better set her straight. And, as to letting middle-schoolers have contraceptives- it is against some religions, and while having premarital sex is too, some parents might prefer the choice to not have thier kids have contraceptives, or abortions, and so let the child have the baby. Learning by experience is the best way to make it stick. I will say that SEX EDUCATION will not make kids promiscuous (Algebra in school doesn't make me want to do math), but giving them the resources to have sex without having to face consequences is encouraging it.

Vanguard- Thank you.

I must say this does sound a little odd at first glance.

But if - as Victoria Silverwolf points out - all that is happening here is (in effect) a doctor or other qualified professional is setting up in practice on the school campus, the REAL issue here is one of doctor-patient confidentiality.

Presumably any parent who would be unhappy if their 12 year old daughter was given a contraceptive prescription by the doctor at her school would be just as unhappy if she got that same prescription from the trusted family doctor? So it's not really about WHERE the doctor (or other qualified professional) practices, it's about what they (or your child) chooses to tell you about what goes on in the confines of their professional relationship.

At what age does the parental right to decide on child healthcare issues stop and the child, as an individual, begin to have the right to consult in confidence with a medical professional (or a legal one, for that matter)? 10? 12? Or not until 18 or 21? Or somewhere in between?

And is it an across-the-board cut-off, or a gradual increase in the child's individual rights as they get older? And what part (if any) do public health issues come into play? Does it only affect certain aspect of healthcare?

What if the sex they are trying to avoid getting pregnant (or catching STIs) from is WITH the parent? Clearly an abusive parent is going to be just as unhappy for the child to tell anyone about it, including a doctor, as a normal, concerned parent is about not knowing if they child is having sex (willingly or not) with someone else. Equally clearly, there can't be a hard and fast rule of "tell the parents" in all cases where the child is having underage sex - if it is the parents who are the problem, telling them will only make matters worse.

As far as sex education goes, I can't help but think that - far from confining it to high school - it should be pitched at kids who are YOUNGER than the ones getting put on the pill. And that the kids who are smart enough to work out that they need to take some medical advice if they are sexually active are probably not the ones who need sex education*. The ones who aren't having sex aren't the problem either. The problem kids are the ones who are having sex but think that if they drink a pint of coke and take an aspirain afterwards, they won't get pregnant. Or that they can't get pregnant if they're on their period. Or that if they wear a condom their testicles will explode. Or that oral or anal sex are okay because they aren't really sex, are they, and this ring I'm wearing only says I promised not to have really sex? Or any of the other myths that they get from NEITHER being able to talk to their parents sensibly (the ideal) NOR getting any useful sex education at school, in BOTH cases well before they are expressing any active sexual interest in, well, anything much i.e. well before puberty.

* Unless you understand "sex education" to mean "DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT HAVING SEX until you're married/we say it's okay/some indeterminate future date that your hormone-crazed adolescent mind will ignore straight away because you're still hooked on the S-word".

That's never really worked and it never really will.

DO NOT THINK OF AN ELEPHANT!!!

What are you thinking about? An elephant, yes? See what I mean?

These are all valid points, I admit, however as you pointed out that if the child is not having sex voluntarily, or feels that they can't talk to their parents about sex because they are afraid of the possible reaction, or that they will be punished, what is the real issue here? Is it really about the children being sexually active, or is it about parents not being there for their children in times that are very important such as when a hormone crazed tween or teen needs information? I think we are only addressing the symptoms of a greater issue here. If we as a society think that we need to teach children about issues that should be taught at home by families because there are parents that aren't taking responsibility for the raising of their children, are we not ignoring that giant elephant that is sitting in the middle of the room?

Wow, I do hope she does get "set straight" soon. I have two children and one is eight and knows full well where babies come from, has for years. I think as a female this is something of importance to know, it is after all their "equipment". Some girls can begin their menstruation as young as 8 yrs. (12 yrs is the average age in US)Your above comment and it's satirical presentation is terribly irksome to me as a female.
Knowing where babies come from and how they are borne etc. is not an adult topic it is just basic awareness and knowledge of our species. I get all the backlash to our children becoming oversexualized but to the point of making them without any understanding of their own sex and bodily functions is well...creepy. And it is most creepy because this ignorance is most openly and fervently applied to girls. I guess our little brains can't handle all the mature content contained within our own bodies, it is all science-y and stuff, not what girls are good at.

I think sex ed is a must in school, I think middle school is where it has to start, but support programs earlier. Have we all forgotten what it was like in middle school? I don't however agree with the reliance on oral contraception, as I think sexually transmitted diseases are also a major concern. I do support providing birth control to kids without parental consent.

Are you asking the administrator or the parent? The administrator probably thinks his "parental responsibility" is creating an environment conducive to learning. He probably thinks he fails if he can't keep their butts in classroom seats instead of home, on a sofa, taking care of babies. To that end offering BC is perfectly rational from their prespective.

Both really. Keep in minds that parents can and do opt their children out of courses and services that school offer. I'm not certain what they do if their kids are talking dirty on the playground though.




I remember such programs(i.e.-5th and 6th grade courses, not to mention junior high classes) being around in the mid 80's and early 90's when I went through. That's at least 25 years, plenty of time for a longitudinal study or two to come on around the bend. I would imagine the answer to your question depends upon which region of the country you're talking about. North Carolina and Kansas evidently have problems.

BTW-Don't even begin to ask this Nebraskan about Kansans. Those people are crazy.

Remember, I am speaking specifically of distribution and not education. We are in agreement over education though we might not agree over when the best time would be to introduce the information.

More to the point, when you say the parents can opt out of certain "services" are you saying that you believe this should be the case when it comes to distribution? Do you anticipate scenarios where a minor should be given contraception even when it may go against the parents' will? Your reassurance that parents have this right to opt out and always will does nothing to assuage my concerns that they will lose this right if they haven't already.

Furthermore, I'm not sure I agree that distribution serivces should be afforded children of parents who consent - my argument being that the line between education and advocacy has been crossed by those in authority over the children. At this point you might claim your previously linked American Academy of Pediatrics as proof that distribution does not encourage younger kids to have sex. At which point we would then bridge into my other issue. Your quote from that article is not sufficient. Though they say distribution does not result in increased sexual activity in no way exonerates you from being able to use it as proof of anything the journal's accepted integrity notwithstanding. Where is that study? What were the parameters? And no, though you and I appear to be contemporaries (just yesterday I hit the big 42) I do not remember programs in California during the 80s where distribution was available though indeed they were already educating. Do you have any source indicating that distribution services were provided in the way you are adovcating?

I'll never understand why a school nurse can't give out aspirin without a prescription, but people somehow think that offering birth control is permissable.

Furthermore, a school offering contraception of any form is in essence condoning the activity. It undermines the responsible values of a family by allowing a figure head (school) to offer birth control.

Finally, it's not the responsibility of an administrator to fill the seats of the school. Keeping their rears in a classroom really isn't his/her responsibility either. Educating them is. In my opinion, education has nothing to do with administering otherwise prescription or purchased contraception.

Some people do have allergic reactions to aspirin, I would imagine that is why it is controlled.



Any hyper-links that back up that point? I've produced a few that clearly document otherwise.



It wasn't the administrator that allowed it to happen, it was the school board-big difference. Source.




Gotta love local control.




It appears as if there are two issues here. Items such as condoms are handed out, despite parental objections. I found that here. Accountability comes into play as before the condoms even hit the nurse's desk, a school board has to approve it. If that doesn't work, then I guess parents will have to leave it to their kids to walk the walk when it comes to following the parent's notion of what should or should not fly in regards to sex education. When it comes to the pill and other resources, it appears that a nurse's approval is needed-per the Portland MA deal.



I honestly doubt the American Academy of Pediatrics would just make it up.

Five studies on the issue-access does not lead to increased sexual activity.

You can also look here if you have time:


Personally, I'd rather just read from the official statement that summarizes these findings. And yes, the quote is relevant.

Well, technically, the school clinic has to prescribe BC.


You forget the parent has to give their child permission to use the school clinic. That's more control than a Planned Parenthood clinic. Parents have to undermine their responsibility with a signature.


This personal responsibility rhetoric/cultural perspective is fine, but it's weird that children can't take responsibility for their own bodies until some undetermined moment before 18. It's also at odds with the expectations we place on schools to do something more than just give students the basics in high crime areas. The only reason zones of responsibility is in play is because we're talking about birth control.

While it is important for people to be comfortable with thier bodies, how much should we be explaining to them? Masturbation is a form of sex, should we explain that to them? It's either all or nothing here, folks. Also, I feel, the more comfortable you are with your own body, the more comfortable you'll get with other people's bodies. But I diverge from the topic at hand. No, I don't support birth control in MIDDLE schools.

And by the way, I'm a female, too. So please don't bore me with the "I'm female, so I'm offended" routine.

Is anyone familiar with a recent thanksgiving study on turjeys? Researchers found that a male turkey, when faced with the choice between a real live female turkey, and a turkey head mounted on a stick, could not distinguish between the two.

Human males, perticularly in their middle-school years, bear, how can I put this...a good deal of similarity to their gobbling, feathered counterparts.

Women--or to be more accurate, since we are talking about middle school; girls---are definitely at risk. A pregnant teenager's chances at self-improvement, or indeed, improvement of any kind, are minimal, where they exist at all. Men? Well, during high-school, our central dogma is usually "pregnant girlfriend? BACK AWAY. BACK AWAY." (I was always the nerdy virgin in the back, so i can only speak from observation, not experience.)

Girls are fairly aware of how dangerous a pregnancy can be to their futures. Contraceptives, programs and whatnot, will probably bear fruit for them. (no pun intended) But boys? Talking about safe sex with middle school boys?

Ugh. You'll have better luck talking to a stone wall. Same smarts---less libido.

Your attitudes towards what knowledge and awareness females should have of their bodies is what offends me, not your gender. You use this word "explaining" to substitute for more appropriate words for this discussion like education, knowledge. I imagine you do this to show a relationship of gain for only one side, the explainer...you seem to ignore the fact that the intent of sex ed is to impart knowledge to then empower these young people's choices in life. How much knowledge or education should a child have about their own body, their own species' reproduction? How is this seen as a negative? Of course age is a consideration as is the case for all material when developing it to be taught.
There is no required mandate of all or nothing, masturbation is a private activity that has no bearing on our public health or the health needs of our nation's citizens. Pregnancy does however and your assertion that pregnancy and masturbation are a bundled package in this discussion shows your obvious inability to understand the differences of private and public sexual behaviors and the government's role. Sexuality in our society again is not an all or nothing but instead encompasses many things from the political to the spiritual to the cultural to even the legal, socially we too have a role.



I don't think many girls do understand the dangers, in all aspects, physically, mentally, socially and financially. I also think boys could benefit from education too and could perhaps be more encouraged to take birth control measures as an equal responsibility. Females obviously carry the ultimate burden biologically, but we should educate our youth to believe and view it differently socially. I don't like how people focus always too much on the idea that sex education is only about the actual act of sex, when we as a society always, always attach so many preconceptions and social attitudes to sexual behaviors. I imagine discussing and better educating our young people about these things would be a good idea too.

Not really.

Here's a point I didn't see brought up. Sex education, condoms, birth control, masturbation, attitudes - ALL of that SHOULD be coming from the parents. What baffles me is this: What is so hard about talking to your teens about sex? How did a guy who wowed a girl well enough to sleep with her become such a pansy when it comes to talking about penises and vaginas. How did a girl who had kids NOT talk to those same kids about sex?

The parents should be sitting down with their kids and raising them. This is NOT the school's job. But I don't blame the school for it; I really think this is a symptom of incredibly bad parenting that "someone" feels "something" needs to be done to go to this measure to try to solve the problem.

If the parents blush more than the kids when the topic comes up, the adults need to grow up.

I think medicine should be administered by parents also.

Everyone has a cell phone. Have the nurse call and request if the kid wants an asprin. Or birth control. Nobody should assume medical decisions of the kids except the parents.

The parents can easily supply it if they want to. But if they DON'T want to, the school should not be undermining that either.

Akalae, I can relate to THAT! Did you shoot paperclips into the ceiling too?

(Boy, I sure hope you weren't just kidding - that'd be embarassing)

I grew up with the AIDS/Rock Hudson thing, and saw a few classmates get pregnant. A little reality went a long way.

Bucket, I agree on both points.

1. Since many girls don't understand the dangers (physically, mentally, socially and financially), why not substitute birth control for lessons on what it takes to raise a family? Unfortunately, these days, women are doing it alone more often than not, and with little help from the men who fathered (if you can call it that) those kids. And for the guys, who ideally plan on "someday" supporting women, let's learn something. It'll happen sooner than expected for many of them. Why not understand the financial ramifications of a child? The cost of diapers? The extra hours to make ends meet, the social change of "people with kids" vs. "people without kids". The mental exhaustion, the physical toll of a pregnancy... etc. Those are GREAT things to teach kids, and it doesn't require a controversial program to effectively get kids thinking about their futures.

2. I think boys should be equally aware of the ramifications. Show a video of a live birth or morning sickness. That'll cool them down to get the message through. Break down what equal partnership in both a relationship and a parental standpoint really means. "Equal ability" to don a condom doesn't do the end result justice.

A lot of guys (and young boys even!) treat women like they're disposable. That's absolutely intolerable.

I don't think handing out birth control is anymore effective than a virginity pledge. You're asking kids who can't remember to bring a pencil to class to control their reproductive organs before they're even used once. However, the kids are smart enough to understand (or at worst imagine) adult situations, and knowing that, let's give them the adult reality. Their actions suggest that they need to know.

My two cents.

swimmerwolf247


There are different facets of sexual activity and masturbation is one, not to mention oral sex. The problem with abstinence only education is that those issues are ignored entirely. You are right, it does fall into the realm of sex. With that being said, why would it not be included in sex education?

And what would be wrong with an "all" approach of covering the topic so that people know their bodies and can make positive decisions with a wealth of knowledge? Of course, a large part of the problem is that under some abstinence only programs, fear and misinformation are the order of the day.


Source.


azwhitewolf:



The decision to include sex education in the curriculum is something that isn't done behind closed doors away from parents. Often times, there are board of education meetings about them and people can attend and speak their mind. It is in the compelling public interest that accurate and scientific views on the issue are out there, which might be problematic if a parent believes that masturbation will cause blindness. That parent might be offended, but then again, the parent's child would benefit from having been taught from someone who knows better.



At the beginning of every school year, schools send home medical permission papers that would authorize the school to provide appropriate medicine. If your child is on the soccer field and goes into full anaphylaxic shock, or suffers a traumatic injury, I believe you would want the situation handled. I don't see anyone wanting their kid aspirating due to constricting bronchioles, all the while, the teacher trying to place a phone call as your child turns blue.

As an EMT trainnee who responds to calls, I would hate to imagine a scenario where we couldn't treat people unless phone calls had to be made for every medical decision. That's why there are things called written protocols and standing orders.

In relationto the Portland, Maine plan, parents have to sign off on their kids accessing the clinic for extra non-routine matters. If you don't sign the form, your kid can get treated if there is a broken bone or something like that. If you do sign it, then your child might access those things above and beyond necessary treatment for illness or injury.



I don't believe people are against abstinence or pledges. I think most people are for a comprehensive view that encompases abstinence with birth control education. It shouldn't just be abstinence only with inaccurate, error riddled information regarding confom failure rates or non-existant information that could help homosexual students or those who are curious about masturbation. As for effectiveness, the western european comprehensive education model wins hands down when compared to U.S. abstinence only programs.

In more recent news, Brazilian school will now be distributing condoms via machines located in the schools. I'm not certain if that would be necessary where I live. Perhaps in Brazil, things are more "open" in regards to that kind of thing.

Update.....

Looks as if a growing number of states are rejecting federal funding for abstinence only progrmas, in favor of comprehensive education material made by each state.

I would like to start by saying one thing

KIDS ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX!

Puberty is a very crazy time and without trying to generalise teenagers especially teenage boys have one thing on their mind. I know I was one not that long ago. There comes a point where we have to accept the fact that some teenagers will have sex no matter what their parents say and when the time comes its better that teenagers are prepared.
There is a lot to be said for having good sex education and teaching the young about the dangers and responsabilities that come with having sex and being sexually active. While I do not have children I know from personal experience that it is better to know about all the options that are available so that you an make an informed decision about having sex before you do it. Both parents and schools need to take the lead in coaching teenagers in the implications of having sex. Most young girls for example do not know that having sex at a very young age increases their risk of getting cervical cancer later in life. The idea of doing it with the right partner and only doing it when you are truly ready to also needs to be reinforced i.e not with some random person who you've just met or because everybody else is doing it.

Those who will do it with the first person they meet and doing it unprotected will do it anyway it is about the people in the middle who could go either way who need the help and support. If abstainance is you're belief and waiting before your married to have sex is what you want to teach you're kids that is fine there is nothing wrong with that belief but it is not a danger to educate them in what is going on in the world around them, have faith in you're skills as a parent and trust that the values you have raised your children with will help guide them, sex education does not threaten or demeen those beliefs its better they hear the truth than to hear urban myths in the playground from other equally confused kids.

Having said all this in response to the questions raised for debate

1. I do not believe that schools should hand out the contraceptive pill to teenagers from a purely medical point of view. at 14-15 most girls are still in the early stages menstruation and the disruption that could be caused to the menstral cycles could damage fertility later on in life. I do however believe that there should be some form of confidential advice centre for children of that age who are going through problems regarding puberty, sex and sexual health that could be provided through the school or referral from the school.

2. The school system is on shakey ground here I dont know about legally but certainly morally on one hand I believe that children do have a right to privacy on some level however a school nurse prescribing the pill certainly seems outside the bounds of their authority certainly on a moral level, If the school nurse referred them to a local doctor or pharmacy that would be another matter entirely and I believe that is within both their moral and so far as I know (alhtough I could be wrong) I think it is within the legal authority too.

The moral issue that is raised here is the exclusion of the parents. I don't know where our country left the family behind and made the state the highest ruler of children. Since when did we exclude parents and family from the raising of a child? This is truely a sad day in our history when state health agencies (the school health center in this case) can make medical decisions after making the parents sign an extremely overgeneralized permission form without consulting the parents at the time of treatment. What rights do the parents have? In this instance, none.

Parents aren't excluded. A parent has to sign off on using the clinic.

Right, that is why I also included "after making the parents sign an extremely overgeneralized permission form". If the parents don't sign the form, can the school provide medical assistance when the child gets injured or sick? With that point, if they don't sign, their children don't get the medical attention that they need, so the parents have to sign. In doing so, the medical center does not have to tell the parents about any medical center visits. Why does the state put the parents in a position that excludes them from their 11 year old child's medical decisions.

I think we went into a thorough discussion about the maturity of children making medical decisions in the blood transfusion debate. Many people were completely against a 14 year old from making that decision, but is it ok for an 11 or 12 year old to make this type of decision? Does the state know better what is best for the family's children than the parents do? Why is the state so quick to make this decision for the parents and to exclude them?

What makes you think the school wouldn't provide general medical care (assuming their clinic is licensed to provide general care) or, more likely, call an ambulance if a kid breaks a leg on the practice field?


Assuming the school stands by while your child is bleeding because parents refused to provide children with specialized, OBGYN care. You're reaching. Do you have any evidence/information to back up your worst case assumptions?

So I went hunting, and found this PDF file at the school's website: Link to PDF file. In emergencies, medical personnel would be required by law to treat anyone that is in need, but as you will see from the elegibility section of the PDF:

This would not allow the Student Health Center to administer medication that is prescribed by the family physician without a consent form completed and signed.

Then, in the confidentiality section, you find this:

This law excludes the parents specifically.

I am still looking for the consent form that is required in the elegibility section. If I find it, I will share with everyone.

Edited to add:
I found the Student Health Center Enrollment Form. It too is a PDF file. As expected, it is a general permission form allowing the child access to the health center. There isn't an area that allows parents to specifically restrict services without parental notification. I disagree with this particular point. The state of Maine allows these services to be provided to the child without requiring notification of the parents. From the previous PDF file, in the confidentiality section:

Woah, careful with that broad brush!. The parents have to sign off for extended clinical service. If they don't sign the permission form, nothing more gets in your child's hands other than basic care for falls, scrapes, etc.

I haven't found anything on thier website that says that the child can be treated for basic care if the parents don't sign.
From the website that I linked to in my previous post:

As this is written, one time per year, they will treat your child after calling you at work for permission, but after that, a signed consent form needs to be on file. I have not found any evidence contrary to this. So, if you don't sign the form, scrapes and bumps (non-life threatening issues) can't be treated. If your child has asthma and needs breating treatments, or your family doctor prescribes medicine that needs to be given to the child at certain times, the health center can't provide those services without the form being signed. Pretty much puts moms and dads in a tough position, doen't it? Either sign the form so your child can get the medical services he or she needs and risk them getting prescriptions for things you should be informed about but aren't; or not sign the form and your child can either try to sneak prescription medication into school and hope they don't get caught or they don't take their medication until they get home, which might be against the advice of the family doctor.

The very next line from where you quoted says this:


pdf document.

Itis true that in order for any school to treat injuries at school, that the parents have to sign a waiver of some sort. Looks like the school nurse handles the scrapes and bumps, the clinic handles anything above and beyond that. So what I'm curous about is this-if using the clinic is tied to all subsequent health services, which would also open up a legal loophole mind you(failed to turn in the clinic documents?, we'll allow your kid to asphyxiate!), then why is it stated that students can be "referred on"?