While I've posted at length on this issue already, in conversation with fellow poster Spiker, I want to bring up once again an issue that I think is important in this discussion, as I read through the main blog posts on the topic.

Regardless of what parents and non-parents HOPE other parents will do - i.e., be involved, good parents who communicate openly with their children and teach them all the necessary emotional, mental and physical lessons the children will need to know - the reality is this: you cannot know how other parents are raising their children. You cannot legislate how well parents handle their responsibilities as parents. Parents of different cultures, different upbringings, different abilities, different health levels, etc etc etc may operate in very different ways and may believe very different things about "what a good parent is."

By making this birth control issue about the parents, bloggers seems to be forgetting that the birth control issue is actually about middle schoolers and teenagers - people who may or may not be engaging in sexual exploration. It has been shown (see Suchie's earlier post about this) that minors are less likely to seek medical care if they think the doctor will notify the parents. That makes a lot of sense to me. Does anyone here remember being a teenager? No matter how great your parents may have been, you probably still wanted to stake some claim on your independennce, which may have ranged from pushing breaking your curfew to breaking the law. I don't know. Teenagers express normative teenage impulses in myriad ways. And what is most common amongst all these differing behaviors is that they want to do it INDEPENDENT of their parents. Period.

With what we all have experienced or could research about teens and pre-teens, I'd think parents and non-parents alike would recognize the ways in which reassurances about the confidentiality of health care for minors would be a beneficial thing and would support (a) minors' rights as individuals; (b) healthy decisions! Your kid is interested in having sex (boy or girl), s/he is legitimately nervous about talking to her parent(s) about this, but s/he has heard or knows that birth control is available in various forms. S/he sighs with relief when s/he discovers s/he can confidentially talk with a doctor about his/her concerns, ask questions, and perhaps be provided with condoms and/or other forms of birth control (if the doctor advises it).

We're talking about kids who are trying to be responsible while making choices. I am always on the side of the law that protects individuals' rights. I believe minors should have rights - and so does federal and often state law. Now, parents/non-parents might not like the choices teens and pre-teens make. But please show me an era in which that has not been true. Meanwhile, teens and pre-teens are interested in sex. The more responsible ones are seeking out a doctor and birth control/contraceptive options. I give a little cheer for those kids. I have no idea what brings them to their decisions to engage in sex. But that part isn't my main concern. I hope that they are being wise and healthy, but ultimately, it's not my place to tell other people what to do with their lives. I'd rather like to know that they have the right to healthily protect their bodies while they explore sexuality.

This issue isn't about parents, in my opinion. While it can be an interesting discussion starter for how to look at parenting in America and how to raise awareness about parental guidance vis-a-vis sex and kids, the issue of birth control availability in middle schools is about the kids who are seeking out birth control. Not their parents. I understand how parents could feel snubbed and worried. But I believe these teens and pre-teens have rights and I believe that the more we can protect those rights, the more likely it is that the teens and pre-teens will start to make healthier choices for themselves. And even if they don't - at least they have that opportunity.

But if they think Mom and Dad will be told about their health care inquiries -- they may just keep their sexual behavior to themselves all together, not consult a doctor at all, and thereby risk pregnancy, STDs, etc. etc.

Parents, please stop getting hung up on the fact that other people's children can't be controlled by your beliefs about what parenting is supposed to mean. Recognize what is GOOD about this decision and what is good about the teens and pre-teens who seek out contraceptive health care. That's a responsible decision on their part. Don't let that get lost in the shuffle about "where is parenting going today?"

If boys are going to buy steroids in order to grow bigger and stronger both for the sake of vanity and for sport performance, should physicians be allowed to prescribe steroids to these boys without telling their parents if is to provide a safer experience? Why or why not?

that's a better theoretical comparison than it is in the real world. Whether or not your 12 year old boy takes steroids doesn't really affect anyone else. Sure there might be a slight increase in the chance he'll injure someone else playing sports, but that's a relatively minor concern compared to the risk of people not using contraception spreading std's or getting pregnant. Plus steroid use is relatively easy to spot and thus stop compared to sexual activity. Additionally, there's a sort of opposite nature to steroids and contraception. If the doctor doesn't give the boy steroids he has to find another source or he can't use them. I doubt that this would be particularly easy for the average 12 year old, especially given the cost. On the other hand, if the doctor doesn't give the boy contraception he can still have sex, he will just be less safe. I would be surprised if there were a significant number of people at that age that wouldn't have sex in any form unless they could get contraception through their doctor anonymously. On the other hand, I would guess that there are plenty of people that would have sex without contraception unless they could get it anonymously. So providing contraception has plenty of benefit and little downside, while providing steroids has little benefit and plenty of downside.

What I would like to see is a way to give contraception that doesn't make preteen sex seem acceptable or even encouraged. The solution I think is condoms and birth control pills for sale in public places frequented by people of all ages, yet in a private place where no one can see you buy it. My vote is bathroom stalls, unless someone has a better idea.

I don't want to deconstruct your answer yet. But do you think a 14 or 15 year old boy might ask a doctor for steroids if he thought he could get them on a confidential basis?

"More than a half million 8th- and 10th-grade students are now using these dangerous drugs, and increasing numbers of high school seniors say they don't believe the drugs are risky."

Look into the above link. Here's something to chew on, in 2000 there were 820,000 teen preganancies as compared to 500,000 steroid users cited above.

<link>

Now I know some misbegotten soul is now going to think that yeah mayber doctors should prescribe steroids without telling the parents. I'm risking a lot here but there is far more equivalence and at stake than you care to admit or understand. Please step back and reconsider every last word you've said in your post.

Also, consider that some girls also take steroids and are mostly not atheletes.

<link>

<link>

<link>

This permissiveness in society is leading down the road of perdition. We are looking at some very bad stats on the horizon. I wonder what steroid abuse is like in Europe among boys and girls?

BTW wpeotih you didn't answer the direct question:

"If boys are going to buy steroids in order to grow bigger and stronger both for the sake of vanity and for sport performance, should physicians be allowed to prescribe steroids to these boys without telling their parents if is to provide a safer experience? Why or why not?"

You talk about independents but never mention that parents are the ones that pay for shelter and food as well as other items.

OK, you want kids to have rights (control) over their sexual behavior. As long as the third parties (state mostly) are willing to pay the bills for all decsions that kids are allowed to make without their parents than I'm OK with these freedoms.

This includes if the child get pregnant and wishes to have the child. The state must then take care of the minor mother and her child (along with the Dad of course who isn't likely to even work so good luck there).

Also, is this independence limited only to sexual issues? For example, should a minor have the right to drive a car without parental consent? Get a job? Move out on their own? I'm OK with all of these IF the minor PAYS THEIR OWN WAY.

But I still find it interesting that all this talk about rights and independence but nothing about who forks up the cash. Rights comes with responsibility and that cost money!

Hey K.,

I'm still waiting on your answer to this question:

If boys are going to buy steroids in order to grow bigger and stronger both for the sake of vanity and for sport performance, should physicians be allowed to prescribe steroids to these boys without telling their parents if it is to provide a safer experience? Why or why not?

As far as doctors handing out prescriptions to boys for steroids w/o the parent's consent, I think that's a red herring. Reputable doctors don't prescribe anabolic steroids to adults (or children even with parental consent) for muscle building. The negative effects are much too great. Anabolic steroids have some limited medical benefit for severe anemia or in situations where the patients cannot produce enough steroids on there own. If you look that the side effects of the pill vs anabolic steroids, there is no comparison. The pill has been proven safe and effective time and time again. There are slightly higher risks for blood clots in older women who smoke. Anabolic steroids cause: liver tumors, heart problems, shrunken testicles, reduced sperm count, stunted growth, and violent outbursts. If the damage to the heart and liver are severe enough it can result in death. The birth control pill has been widely tested and found to be safe. The same cannot be said for anabolic steroids.

Okay Doctor.

Many of the issues on steroid use are associated with dosing and product quality.

Depo provera is known to cause bone density mass loss in women. The fact is that no dosage of hormones in developing bodies is safe.

And you really didn't answer the question: Should doctors prescribe steroids to teenagers to make it as safe an experience as possible without telling the parents?

How you can equate steriods and birth control is beyond me.

They are both hormones prescription contraceptives and steroids. Kids are doing sex and doing steroids. I've linked to a couple sources about kids doing steroids.

I bet that doctors could help steroid users just as much as they can help girls with prescription birth control. They can get them a clean steroid source and educate the child about safer dosing levels.

After all boys and girls are both doing it: sex and steroids.

Again another person who just can't bring themselves to answer the question honestly:

And you really didn't answer the question:

Should doctors prescribe steroids to teenagers to make it as safe an experience as possible without telling the parents?

I didn't know the problem w/ steroids were that kids were getting impure supplies. I thought the danger was because they interfere with the still-growing body. And it makes more sense to supply contraception for sexually active kids to keep from having unwanted babies. Fuck the boys if they just want to bulk up.

"I didn't know the problem w/ steroids were that kids were getting impure supplies."

No it is also dosing!

Some atheletes claim that cycling steroids really makes a difference and that their risks have been greatly reduced.

So if it happening anyways and doctors might be better able to manage the boys' health (and GIRLS take roids too), why not let doctors help the boys (and girls) out without telling their parents?

Come one ZIE-got tell me what the difference is. In both cases the physician is trying to look after the health of minors without telling parents. He is even dealing in both cases with a hormone. You think Depo Provera is good for a minor girl?

No, in the girl's case, they're looking after the health of the girl and the baby. And the society that so often has to raise the kid. There is no benefit except vanity for using steroid to bulk up. To say there is no difference between the two because they're both called "steroids" shows how little you know about steroids.

That was a typo and I meant hormone.

But essentially your idea about the difference is just poorly thought out nonsense. The idea about giving prescribed birth control to young girls is to help them maintain fetus free status so that they can vainly screw around to their hearts content even though they could catch any known STD or later in life suffer the side affects of their prescription.

On the other hand steroids are also being used despite parents not wanting their children to do so. Maybe by your logic steroids should be prescribed by physicians. Your argument that there is a difference is just plain wrong. You should admit your logical shortcomings.