The morning after pill dilemma

[Choppaduel]

1. Was this the right decision? (should the parents have been informed? should she have been declined the pill due to being underage)

Let me answer this question with a question: do you think its right that a 14 year old be a parent?
Of course this was the right decision. AAA-DUHHHHHHH.

2. Should the government be encouraging underage sexual activity by not only providing the morning after pill but also by not having any form of punishment doing so. (we did not inform the authorities as it was deemed to be "appropriate")

Hmmm. No they shouldn't punish it. No they shouldn't encourage it. This is a tricky one. The only thing I can think of is to make the pill cost $50 or something (or w/e the equivalent is in your currency) so that between the two of them, they can come up with the money and learn a lesson, or she/they can explain it to her parents and get them to pay for it.

EDIT: fixed a significant typo.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

If people want contraception give it to them.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

Having pharmacists try and prevent teen pregnancy is like a trauma surgeon trying to prevent drunk driving. Withholding the pill would only lead the girl to more drastic measures. As for telling her parents, that one is more tricky. Ideally, if her parents had a mature approach and did not condemn the girl outright for having underage sex, telling them would be a good thing. But since you couldn't know the home environment I wouldn't.

 

[chuckman1]

You did the right thing and unless it's a wrong situation NEVER contact parents or authorities in this situation that can only make it much worse possibly leading to the boyfriend being labeled a registered sex offender the rest of his life no matter what she said.

 

[NeutralDrow]

I guess informing or not informing the parents is a sticky point (though I'd probably default to not; if she gets caught, it's her problem, but she may have learned something from this), but I can't think of any good reason why she should be denied the pill. So yeah, I'd say right decision.

 

[BabyRaptor]

While I strongly believe that the average 14 year old is too young for that sort of behavior, it's the duty of a medical care provider to take care of the patient, and not judge them.

This sums up my reaction to the situation. Give the girl the medical help she needs and keep your nose out of her personal life.

It's like that law Bush tried to push through a few years back that states that doctors don't have to provide medical care if it goes against their religious beliefs. All it ended up being was a way for anti-abortionists to force people to conform to their beliefs.

If your job hands you a moral choice you feel you can't make, find another job. You have no right to force your opinion of right and wrong on other people, ESPECIALLY when they depend on you for help.

 

[Austin Howe]

Our mistakes are our own. The sins of our fathers are not ours, and our sins are not our fathers. We must be left alone to correct these mistakes, and allowing these decisions to be made for you is wrong. It should be that girl's choice, and no one need learn of her most private decisions, especially her parents.

Absolutely, given that unhappiness is at an all time high, I'd think the ability to freely fuck one another without any judgement would help make people feel better. Puppy love is love, it's just as genuine a feeling as "adult" love. We have no right restricting out children the way a good majority of us do.

 

[fletch_talon]

Unfortunately, as much as I think the girls parents should be informed, if that were done then these girls would be too scared to go get the morning after pill.
Then we end up with teenage mothers.

 

[boholikeu]

Here's a brief summary of where my questions stem from:

I am a final year pharmacy student currently studying in Scotland. During a shift working in a pharmacy a young girl aged 14 came into the pharmacy and requested the morning after pill (for anyone who may not know, the morning after pill is a free one time pill that will, ~80% of the time, prevent fertilization, therefore preventing pregnancy even after unprotected sex).

Also to inform you the legal age for sex in the UK is 16, if it is different where you live then presume that the girl was 2 years below the minimum age.

The girl went in for a consultation with the pharmacist and was found to pass all the criteria which is required in order to receive the pill (had unprotected sex, wasn't on any other relevant medication, etc etc). It turns out that she had been fooling around while a bit drunk with her also 14 year old boyfriend and the condom they used burst. After a discussion between myself and the pharmacist it was decided that to supply her with the pill was legal. In Scotland it is legal to provide the pill to 13 year olds and above as long as the pharmacist does not deem the situation to be inappropriate, such as if the boyfriend had been significantly older or abuse may have been suspected, WITHOUT the need to inform the parents or guardian.

Now there is a whole heap of ethical and moral questions here but there are two i want to ask of my fellow escapists.
1. Was this the right decision? (should the parents have been informed? should she have been declined the pill due to being underage)
2. Should the government be encouraging underage sexual activity by not only providing the morning after pill but also by not having any form of punishment doing so. (we did not inform the authorities as it was deemed to be "appropriate")

Just OOC, why didn't you have to alert the authorities that she was having sex underage? If she's under the legal limit, wouldn't that imply that something "inappropriate" was happening legally?

 

[Cain_Zeros]

1. yes this was the right decision - Under no circumstances should a girl be denied access to contraceptives, regardless of age or situation. This is doubly true in situations of emergency contraception. What this girl did was act responsibly (in an attempt to rectify a lapse in judgement and unfortunate accident).

Regarding her being underage - statutory rape and consent laws are in place predominantly to prevent children from being taken advantage of by people in a position of power over them by nature of age or experience. It would be ludicrous to argue that these teens had sex non-consentually, and a grievous miscarriage of the spirit of consent laws to pursue legal action.

Furthermore - pharmacists should not be permitted to disclose any medical informaion about a teen seeking their help to the teen's parents without the express consent of the patient. Doing so, for one, breaches assumed medical confidentiality, and two, actively discourages teens from pursuing responsible contraceptive precautions. Teens are going to have sex anyhow - punishing them for trying to have safer sex is asinine.

2. the government should be doing exactly what it is - providing medical care, and contraceptive / safe sex options to kids that find themselves in a bad spot.

-m

I'm pretty much with Matt. Better to let the kid get the pill without being afraid of parental rage than have either a 14 year old mom or a young kid dying or becoming infertile because of a back-alley abortion.

 

[ewhac]

Praise to the deities that be that this did not happen in the United States:
[li]The teenagers' identities would have been revealed and exposed to public scorn;[/li]

That would be illegal under United States law.

Cold comfort when it gets leaked to the press. (Don't expect anyone to be following that one up.)

[li]The teenage boy would have been arrested and arraigned on charges of statutory rape;[/li]

He was the same age as her so no he wouldn't.

Statutory rape laws probably vary from state to state. In many (or at least enough) cases, the age of the assailant doesn't matter. It's probably prosecutor's choice.

[li]You two would have been sacked;[/li]

They did the legally and morally correct thing so unless they break confidentiality then no they wouldn't.

Moral and often legal correctness fails in the face of corporate policy -- they would have been sacked for not referring the matter upward to the corporate legal department. Now the pharmacy chain is exposed to civil and possibly criminal liability. Ergo: You lose your job.

[li]You shortly thereafter would have been charged with obstruction of justice and contributing to the delinquency of a minor;[/li]

See above.

Again, prosecutor's choice.

[li]You would be receiving death threats from Christian terrorists.[/li]

Ok I will give you that one.

Yeah, especially if Limbaugh got his flabby jowls into it...

 

[FamoFunk]

1. Was this the right decision? (should the parents have been informed? should she have been declined the pill due to being underage)
It was absolutly to right decision to give her the morning-after-pill. I couldn't imadgine being 14 and in that situation where you might be pregnant, growing and having a little baby is terrifying (I was 18 when I fell pregnant and gave birth, she was and still is a much wanted little lady, but it was still scary! I was mentally, emotionally and financially ready at 14 no-one is)

The parents have no right to know, this is positive and negative. You have no idea how they would react and that's, again a very scary situation to be in for a young Girl, Men are lucky, it's not hard to walk away from your responabilities(SP), of course it takes two to tango but lots of Girls get promises from the Boys that they'll always be their for them, which the Girl beleives. (and vice versa)

You can't expect people to wait until they're 16 to be sexually active, I certainaly didn't, not everyone hits puberty at 16 and then becomes intrested in the opposite sex and sex its self.



2. Should the government be encouraging underage sexual activity by not only providing the morning after pill but also by not having any form of punishment doing so. (we did not inform the authorities as it was deemed to be "appropriate")
They're not encouraging it. The morning after pill isn't just for those who're under-age, a lot of people in their 20's and 30's use it too.

The real problem is un-protected sex and people thinking they can use the MA pill or abortions as a form of contraception. It's not a fucking form of contraception! A condom is, or the pill (the one you take daily to prevent pregnancey happening), the coil, the implant. They're all form of contraception. The problem is they're not giving out enough sex education (I had, in my whole school life 1 hours worth were we put a condom on some form of dildo) on how to use this contraception, it's just "don't have sex" it's stupid. There's no point in punishing those who have under-age sex (unless of course one side is a lot older than the minor) it's too hard to police. If they wanna have sex they can. It' just a shame they haven't been properly educated in it.

 

[Canid117]

Praise to the deities that be that this did not happen in the United States:
[li]The teenagers' identities would have been revealed and exposed to public scorn;[/li]

That would be illegal under United States law.

Cold comfort when it gets leaked to the press. (Don't expect anyone to be following that one up.)

Whoever leaked it would certainly fired because patient confidentiality is an extremely serious matter. The pharmaceutical company would fire the individual who leaked the item because, A) awful fucking PR, B) the government would fine them if they didn't, C) no one would ever go to those pharmacies again.

[li]The teenage boy would have been arrested and arraigned on charges of statutory rape;[/li]

He was the same age as her so no he wouldn't.

Statutory rape laws probably vary from state to state. In many (or at least enough) cases, the age of the assailant doesn't matter. It's probably prosecutor's choice.

While the age of consent can vary from state to state as long as both individuals are under age and within three years of one another then neither can be charged with statutory rape.

[li]You two would have been sacked;[/li]

They did the legally and morally correct thing so unless they break confidentiality then no they wouldn't.

Moral and often legal correctness fails in the face of corporate policy -- they would have been sacked for not referring the matter upward to the corporate legal department. Now the pharmacy chain is exposed to civil and possibly criminal liability. Ergo: You lose your job.

There was no criminal activity that the pharmacy could be charged with. The morning after pill does not require a prescription and anyone in the united states regardless of age is allowed access. If the parents attempted to sue because they found out about the pharmacy's actions the judge would throw the case out because this is not a legitimate reason to sue someone.

[li]You shortly thereafter would have been charged with obstruction of justice and contributing to the delinquency of a minor;[/li]

See above.

Again, prosecutor's choice.

Seeing as how they have not obstructed justice in any way no they would not be charged. Unless a court order was brought against them by the police to reveal who she had sexual relations with (which is unconstitutional and any first year law student could crush in court) and they refused they could not be charged with obstruction of justice. As for the "Contributing to the delinquency of a minor" two minors within three years of age having consensual sex is not illegal and so and so no delinquency can be brought against the pharmacy.



No where in the United States would any of what you described happen. Not even in the deepest part of Texas or the Bible belt. Hell, a provider of medicine can be sued for not providing the morning after pill in civil court. Even to a minor.