The Daily Express asks the question, and Dalrymple grudgingly answers yes. It is far from the best solution to the problem of teen sexual relations, he says, but it is the only realistic option for a doctor.
If a doctor is presented with a girl of 13 who tells him she is having sexual intercourse how can he not prescribe the Pill?He has to do what he thinks is best for his patient and he cannot possibly think it best that she should become pregnant, much less have a baby.That would certainly not be in her interest, nor in society’s (though the latter cannot be the doctor’s main consideration).He has little option but to prescribe, though this puts him in the awkward situation of conniving at what the law says is a sexual crime.
Read the whole piece here
There’s anothere piece up on pjmedia:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/do-nicotine-patches-actually-work/?singlepage=true
Keep up the good work!
I was surprised at the doctor’s opinions here. Ms. Blackburn’s opinions seemed more typical of Dalrymple’s usual line of reasoning since she asserted that a change in our culture is what matters and the only thing that will bring real change for the better, not pills or policies. I remember once reading Dalrymple commenting on British youth whose diet consisted entirely of chocolate bars. Mocking the liberal establishment, he said that they would probably respond to this by trying to force candy companies to fortify their chocolate bars with iron and vitamins in order to benefit this part of the populace, rather than trying to change our crumbling culture and the eating habits that are part of it. It seems to me that Dalrymple here is advocating something similar: kowtowing to our decaying culture by indulgently treating the symptoms of a depraved lifestyle rather than the root causes.
On the other hand, he is a seasoned NHS doctor, and he has firsthand experience with the plight of these girls, and maybe this experience leads him to his current opinion. It is either this, or a defeatist attitude toward our cultural decay, that I see as the cause of his opinion here.
I note that in the US, he would actually commit a crime, since as a mandated reporter, he must report any suspected child abuse.
A sexually active 13-year-old should rouse such suspicions.
He seems to be right here, and wrong in a previous article where he claims the government enjoined doctors into being “panders to paedophiles” by producing guidelines which require the prescription of contraceptives to under-age girls. Firstly I would say that sex with an under-age teenage girl is not paedophilia (if they are pubescent, the fact that sex is illegal, socially frowned upon, abusive and/or exploitative does not a paedophile make.)
Moreover, doctors are encouraged to report situations to the authorities where children (defined as under 18) are at risk. A girl of 13 or 14 having sex with a much older partner who TD considered a “paedophile” would fall under this and he could report the sexual crime to the police and/or involve social services. Even a 17 year old clearly being exploited or sold into prostitution could be reported. The cases where confidentiality would hold sway involve sexual relationships between two adolescents, which the government of the UK has never intended to punish by law or prosecute; the Sexual Offences Acts 1956 and 2003 were openly stated to be instructive in character; they are to show under-16s that society disapproves of early sexual initiation but not to prosecute youths for developmentally normal sex. The protection of youth from predatory adults is the main goal of the legislation. So no professional is required to connive at serious criminal acts against children.
Dalrymple has also misrepresented law in the past by stating that whenever his under-age patients fell pregnant, “a rape legally must have taken place”- the statutory rape provision is not triggered unless a girl is 12 or under. It is tempting to go from the fact that consent is not legally valid to say that in law there was no consent at all, thus rape occurred, when the actual legislation is more nuanced that that. Kenneth Clarke fell into the same trap when he inaccurately said, “rape could be about a 17-year-old boy with his 15-year-old girlfriend”, during the debate over whether all rapes were equally serious.
He is sadly right about there being no prospect of an abortion ban in the foreseeable future over here.
He seems to be right here, and wrong in a previous article where he claims the government enjoined doctors into being “panders to paedophiles” by producing guidelines which require the prescription of contraceptives to under-age girls. Firstly I would say that sex with an under-age teenage girl is not paedophilia (if they are pubescent, the fact that sex is illegal, socially frowned upon, abusive and/or exploitative does not a paedophile make.)
Moreover, doctors are encouraged to report situations to the authorities where children (defined as under 18) are at risk. A girl of 13 or 14 having sex with a much older partner who TD considered a “paedophile” would fall under this and he could report the sexual crime to the police and/or involve social services. Even a 17 year old clearly being exploited or sold into prostitution could be reported. The cases where confidentiality would hold sway involve sexual relationships between two adolescents, which the government of the UK has never intended to punish by law or prosecute; the Sexual Offences Acts 1956 and 2003 were openly stated to be instructive in character; they are to show under-16s that society disapproves of early sexual initiation but not to prosecute youths for developmentally normal sex. The protection of youth from predatory adults is the main goal of the legislation. So no professional is required to connive at serious criminal acts against children.
Dalrymple has also misrepresented law in the past by stating that whenever his under-age patients fell pregnant, “a rape legally must have taken place”- the statutory rape provision is not triggered unless a girl is 12 or under. It is tempting to go from the fact that consent is not legally valid to say that in law there was no consent at all, thus rape occurred, when the actual legislation is more nuanced that that. Kenneth Clarke fell into the same trap when he inaccurately said, “rape could be about a 17-year-old boy with his 15-year-old girlfriend”, during the debate over whether all rapes were equally serious.
He is sadly right about there being no prospect of an abortion ban in the foreseeable future over here.
Brad, I know what you mean. I think he’s trying to do both on this one. First and foremost take immediate practical steps to stop things getting worse – just stop these girls getting pregnant. Then, at the same time, keep the pressure up to change the culture which leads to this. He calculates that things are so bad now they’re just going to do it anyway, so it’s like plugging the whole, then bailing out all the water and fixing up cracks..