Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This may be the most probable scenario but there are some darker ones to consider, too. That is the elephant in the room that I was wondering if anyone else has considered.
There is no elephant in the room. Stop pretending to be the only one who "sees" it.
Please stop saying there are "zero clinical studies regarding it’s use in teens". That is not true. There is clinical experience with implants in adolescents going back to the original Norplant in the 1990s. Like this one from 1994:
How do you no there was no follow up after the insertion?
These aren't trials.
The first one looks at 48 --a whopping FOURTY EIGHT GIRLS back in 1994 -- who used it. You had to go all the way back to 1994 to find something? Oh and the girls in the study? Had already had kids. Different population, then the 99% of girls in HS.
And the authors even state: "Norplant would seem like a good contraceptive option for adolescent mothers, but little data exists about the use of this particular contraceptive method in that population. " And that's the conclusion, not the goal of the "study."
The second article is a discussion -- not a trial of use so doesn't even address Miss Terri's comment.
Please stop saying there are "zero clinical studies regarding it’s use in teens". That is not true. There is clinical experience with implants in adolescents going back to the original Norplant in the 1990s. Like this one from 1994:
How do you no there was no follow up after the insertion?
Merck states that there have been no clinical studies for this implant in teens. I’m stating the truth. Quit trying to pretend that there are.
If the school clinic followed up with the teen then why did she continue to have side effects up until her mom took her to the pediatrician to figure out what was wrong with her?
Merck states that there have been no clinical studies for this implant in teens. I’m stating the truth. Quit trying to pretend that there are.
If the school clinic followed up with the teen then why did she continue to have side effects up until her mom took her to the pediatrician to figure out what was wrong with her?
Merck did not do them. That does not mean there is no evidence for the safety of implants under age 18. They have been used in that age group since the original Norplant - in the 1990s.
That is why ACOG supports contraceptive implant use in adolescents.
I had no idea it was permissible for teens to receive contraceptive services of this nature without
parental consent. Is this permissible in your state or any others if you are aware?
In Oregon, any teen over age 15 can receive any medical procedure without parental consent. There was recent wailing and gnashing of teeth in the news when a local teen got himself vaccinated over the objections of his whacko parents.
Merck did not do them. That does not mean there is no evidence for the safety of implants under age 18. They have been used in that age group since the original Norplant - in the 1990s.
That is why ACOG supports contraceptive implant use in adolescents.
There were no clinical studies done with this product for this age group. That is the truth. I’d appreciate it if you would stop moving the goal posts. By the way, Norplant was not great for a lot of women. There was a lawsuit which led to a $50 million settlement over serious side effects.
There were no clinical studies done with this product for this age group. That is the truth. I’d appreciate it if you would stop moving the goal posts. By the way, Norplant was not great for a lot of women. There was a lawsuit which led to a $50 million settlement over serious side effects.
Merck did not do them. That does not mean there have been no studies. ACOG recommends long acting contraception for teens. That is good enough for me.
In Oregon, any teen over age 15 can receive any medical procedure without parental consent. There was recent wailing and gnashing of teeth in the news when a local teen got himself vaccinated over the objections of his whacko parents.
Who pays for it? I assume that if the procedure is done without parental consent the state pays for it?
Who pays for it? I assume that if the procedure is done without parental consent the state pays for it?
Why assume the state pays? If a 15 year old buys a McDonald's meal without parental consent, the state doesn't pay for it. If a 17 year old buys a new T-Shirt without parental consent, does the state pay for it? If a 16 year old gets a hair cut without parental consent, does the state pay for it? No, no and no.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
