russ_watters said:
So my question is: As a parent, why not have your child be given an implantable contraceptive such as Norplant? It's good for 5 years and it protects against one of the biggest life-ruining events that a parent otherwise has little control over preventing.
I would have two major issues with something like this. The most reliable methods of birth control (such as norplant or depo provera, which is a monthly injection...for a teen, even the pill is not as reliable since they can forget to take it) have serious health risks. Both of those longer acting forms of contraception contain artificial progestins (compounds that mimic progesterone). Possible side effects of progestins include blood clots, which can be life threatening, and long term use increases uterine cancer risks. In addition, norplant leaves behind scars, and when it is time to remove it, it will be encapsulated in connective tissue that grows around it and makes it difficult to remove.
Irregular bleeding is also a more common side effect of norplant, and very undesirable (perhaps even more so for a teen who is just trying to adjust to these body changes).
I'd also be concerned about starting hormonal contraceptives too early in teens if they do not actually need it because of less studied potential side effects on growth and bone maturation (these may not be an issue, but with the current state of knowledge, I wouldn't risk it).
In a teen, the progestin-only contraceptives would also have the undesirable side effect of potentially worsening acne (the estrogen containing contraceptives reduce this risk).
Further, there are some studies that suggest by the 5th year of usage, the efficacy is reduced, which, with normal progression of teen behavior, would be just about the time they are more likely to be becoming sexually active.
Beyond all the potential health risks, which may be worthwhile if a teen actually IS sexually active, but not if they are remaining abstinent, there is another serious issue that would make me think twice about compulsory contraceptives, and that is the trust that would be broken. I don't think a teen is going to go out and have sex just because birth control is made available to them, but I'd be more concerned about the psychological damage of demonstrating in a fairly invasive and obvious way that you don't trust your child to either not have intercourse, not use protection, or not seek your advice on using protection.
A few other issues I'd have are that putting a person on a hormonal contraceptive does not prevent transmission of STDs. If you think pregnancy is life changing, what about HIV, HPV, or herpes? While a teen may not be more likely to engage in intercourse with or without the availability of birth control, if they are already on a hormonal contraceptive, they are less likely to use a physical barrier method of protection that will also protect them against STDs.
Lastly, because a teenaged girl needs some time to learn how hormonal changes affect her body, putting her onto a birth control method that prevents menstrual bleeding or can result in very irregular bleeding would mean that if the contraceptive fails, she may take longer to recognize she is pregnant. A little weight gain in a teen on a contraceptive may not be recognized as pregnancy until she has much more limited options on how to handle that pregnancy, not to mention the risk to the fetus/baby without proper prenatal care if the pregnancy is recognized late.
So, I would much prefer to opt for educating teens on the risks of intercourse, the correct method of using contraceptives, make sure they know they can approach their parents with questions, concerns, or the need for contraceptives without getting lectured, and even go so far as to educate them on alternative methods to relieve that frustration of adolescent attraction. I think building trust rather than breaking trust is a better way of getting them to make good decisions and come to you for help if they make a bad decision.
