THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT

DOCTORS SHOULD BE ALLOWED

TO PRESCRIBE CONTRACEPTION
FOR UNDER-AGE GIRLS
Teenage pregnancy rates are on the rise, and contraceptives are often hailed as the
underlying cause. However, few people agree on why contraceptives might be causing
an increase in pregnancy rates. Some believe that a lack of contraceptives has led to
more unprotected sex among young girls who choose to take that risk[1]; others claim
that the availability of contraceptives encourages young girls to underestimate the
emotional and physical impact of having sex at a young age[2]. It is very difficult to
reach an absolute conclusion either way because of the difficulties of gathering data
about whether underage girls have engaged in sexual activity. They may refuse to tell,
or falsely say that they have been sexually active as a result of peer pressure to have
sex[3].
A high teenage pregnancy rate damages to the girls career or life prospects,
and for society it often creates a financial and social burden to support the children and
young mothers[4]. While doctors are bound by the principles of medical ethics to aid
their patients as far as possible[5], providing contraceptives to under-age girls can be
seen as undermining the purpose of the law against under-age intercourse because it
provides a safe way for them to break that law. It can also put doctors in an
uncomfortable position if they feel that the girl will have intercourse without
contraception if they refuse to prescribe it, at which point they may feel that they are
failing to help the patient to avoid physical and mental health issues which could
potentially result from unprotected sex.
The mechanism for this debate is that doctors should be able to prescribe
contraception to young girls, even if they have not yet reached the legal age of consent,
as long as they satisfy certain conditions already laid out by medical authorities such as
the British Medical Association. In this case, under the rules for informed consent, the
patient must be aware of and have genuinely understood the hazards and benefits of
various methods of contraception.[6] Doctors must also make sure that patients are
able to use the chosen method properly and can recognise and cope with side
effects.[7] This mechanism does not impose an absolute limit to contraceptive
prescriptions based on age, but rather assesses each patient as an individual to
ascertain whether that personally are ready for a sexual relationship. This upholds
medical ethics in that the doctors concern should be the welfare of the patient
concerned[8] basing individual prescriptions on individual need rather than imposing
a uniform age restriction.
POINTS FOR
Refusing to prescribe contraceptives below a certain age
ignores the principle of informed consent.
POINT

Refusing to prescribe contraceptives for girls below the age of consent assumes that no
under-age girls can make an informed decision to choose a sexual relationship. Medical
advice and prescriptions should be given on an individual, rather than uniform, basis.
As long as these girls meet the requirements for consent laid out by the relevant
medical authority, there should be no reason for contraceptives should be denied to
them. The decision of whether an individual is ready to engage in a sexual relationship
is a purely personal one; refusing contraceptives places them at unnecessarily medical
risk, both physically and mentally, and does not adhere to the duty of care by doctors
for their patients[1].
COUNTERPOINT
We have to place a limit somewhere. Though some children might be emotionally
mature enough for sex at the age of 12 or 13, it is also destructive to imply that
they all are. It can be very difficult to gauge whether a young girl has genuinely
understood the true consequences of her contraception, and giving routine prescriptions
to under-age girls could give fuel to peer-pressure[1] as there is now no medical
obstacle why the girl can refuse sex. Informed consent is very difficult to gauge
accurately, and the potential to misidentify a vulnerable girl who is being coerced as a
girl who is fully informed could carry enormous consequences and fail to care for the
best medical interests of the patient.
Easily-available contraception does not increase teen sexual
activity and can tackle teen pregnancy rates.
POINT
Although it is almost impossible to absolutely prevent underage sex, as already shown
by rising teen pregnancy rates in the US, the UK and across Europe[1][2], it is possible
to encourage safe sex. Sex education programmes which teach abstinence rarely seem
to deter sexual activity or prevent teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted
infections[3]. However, studies researching the effect of providing contraceptives in
schools have found that there was no increase in sexual activity[4]. If this principle was
extended to include the many different types of contraception available by prescription,
this could feasibly help to lower high teenage pregnancy rates; for example, the
prescribed pill has a higher efficiency rate than condoms, which are often available in
schools or clinics[5] but used inefficiently[6]. Devices like the IUD also remove any
problems of girls forgetting to take their pills on time. [7] Allowing under-age girls to be
able to talk to a doctor and receive the form of contraception which is best fitting for
them[8] would actively tackle rising teen pregnancy rates.
COUNTERPOINT
It is very difficult to gather accurate information over whether increased availability of
contraception does or does not lead to increased sexual activity. However, the gesture
of allowing underage girls to receive prescription from doctors is dangerous in principle.
It represents the "systematic removal of every restraint that used to act as a
disincentive to under-age sex"[1], and undermines the laws currently in place. Even if
this does not have an immediate, visible, short-term effect on teen sexual activity, it
may well lead to a disregard towards the need for emotional maturity in sex over the
long-term.
Denying contraceptives negates a doctors ethical duty to
help their patients.
POINT
Disallowing doctors to prescribe contraceptives to young girls impedes their duties of
medical ethics. The principle of beneficence instructs that doctors should do good for
their patients[1]. If a young girl is in danger of an unplanned pregnancy and the
potential medical complications which accompany it, a doctor should not deny her help if
she asks for it and is medically suitable for the contraceptives. For example, she must be
within the parameters for weight and blood pressure to take the combined pill, without
undue likelihood of blood clots and other potential risks[2]. It is contradictory to give
doctors the right to judge their patients best interests, but simultaneously prevent them
from acting in their professional capacity.
COUNTERPOINT
Medical ethics and the law clash here. Another important cornerstone of medical ethics
is autonomy[1], which requires that the patient must be able to make a fully informed
decision something which might be compromised by her potential lack of maturity at a
young age. It is particularly important that medical autonomy excludes coercion or
coaxing[2] this is placed in jeopardy from the risk of teenage peer pressure[3].
However, there is nothing to prevent a young girl from simply speaking to a doctor
about her concerns, which would also fulfil the doctors ethical duty. Doctors must also
operate within the boundaries of the law; if this motion was passed, the principles of
law would be violated instead. This motion can only replace one negative effect
potential unprotected sex with another, breaking the law. It is not a satisfactory
solution.
Easier access to prescribed contraceptives promotes
information and education.
POINT
By visiting the doctor, young girls have more access to information which they might not
get from their school sex education. Given that, in the United States, there is no federal
mandate to teach sex education in public schools, and less than half of all public
schools . . . offer information on how to obtain birth control[1], it is patently clear that
the current educational system fails to address the needs of young adolescents in this
respect. A doctors surgery or clinic is a more private environment for young girls to ask
for clarification, without intimidation from male or female peers[2], which encourages
education and makes sure that the girls are more fully informed before they have sex.
COUNTERPOINT

This is an argument to improve sex education, rather than to rely on doctors to provide
outside information. If the school system of sex education is not working, then it should
be improved, rather than diverting young girls elsewhere to try and find information.
Furthermore, other methods of contraception are more easily available, such as
condoms at drop-in clinics in the UK[1]. Speaking directly to a doctor, and requiring
them to professionally sanction this underage sexual behaviour, is not the only way to
obtain contraception.