The apocalypse is nigh, and it's all brought about by tweenage girls and their loose morals. At least, that's what some sections of the media are telling us. Over 1,000 girls aged 11 and 12 have been prescribed the pill by their GP according to the general practice research database.
The Telegraph quotes a hand-wringing Dr Trevor Stammers, a member of the British Medical Association's expert panel on sexual health, who says that the figures show that the UK was "facilitating the sexualisation of young people at an ever younger age". The Sunday Times quotes him, too: "If sex education is introduced in primary schools in the way being proposed, we will see many more 11-year-old girls seeking contraception, and if we pay GPs to give out contraception without pointing out the risks … we are going to make matters worse."
It's not just the estimable Stammers whipping up a moral panic here (and neither article mentions that he's previously served as chair for the Christian medical fellowship, which means he's not just "an expert in sexual health", but he has a very distinct perspective on issues of sex and contraception). It's the reporters themselves. Both reports imply throughout that 11- and 12-year-olds are having sex all the time.
The Sunday Times warns us darkly that "early sexual activity boosts the risk of sexually transmitted diseases that can cause infertility" and "underage girls are also vulnerable to psychological damage, particularly if pressured by an older boyfriend", then wails that prescribing a contraceptive injection to teenagers means "they [the girls] have a regular sex life and want to avoid taking a daily pill".
Well, no, it doesn't mean that, and Stammers, who is apparently a GP, should know better. The vast amount of teenage and preteen girls on any kind of hormonal contraceptive will be on it to regulate their periods or to control their acne. They'll be given Dianette or Cilest and their lives will be a hell of a lot better because of it. If the pill doesn't suit them for one reason or another, they can be prescribed Depo-Provera or Noristerat injections, but that's relatively unlikely, hence there being only 200 girls in this situation.
These girls aren't going to the doctor begging to be given contraception – they're going because they're in pain, they're worried about irregular menstruation, or they're distressed about the way they look as their skin erupts in spots. The contraceptive is a side-effect. And as girls start puberty earlier and earlier, there will be more younger girls seeking help from their GPs to deal with these problems.
Do either the Sunday Times or the Telegraph articles mention this? Not at all. They fill their reportage with implication and leave Stammers to fill in the rest – that our teenage and pre-teen girls are full of uncontrollable, underage lust. There's absolutely no reason to think that these girls are having sex or are being pressured into doing so by these shadowy "older boyfriends", but to speculate that this is the case makes for an excellent tut-tut story.
What's worse is that usually bright people who didn't spend their teenage years as a girl tormented by the rebelliousness of their own body will make the same assumptions without ever stopping to think about whether there could be any other reasons for the rise in pill prescriptions – a case for Bad Science if ever there was one.
In short, give up on the moral panic and think about the reasons behind the figures you're being spoonfed by people with their own agenda – and that goes for readers and reporters. Teenage girls have a tough enough time as it is without being demonised on a national scale.
