| |
Not in front of the parents
By Jennie Bristow
May 19, 2004
Imagine that your 14-year-old
daughter had an abortion without your knowledge - while her
school not only helped to arrange the abortion, but colluded
in keeping it secret from you. Imagine that you found out
about this from your mother, who had found out from the elder
sister of one of your daughter's friends. Imagine that, when
you did talk to her about it, your daughter changed her mind
about the abortion halfway through the course of drugs, only
to find out that it was too late. How would you feel?
'I am absolutely outraged',
said Maureen Smith, mother of the girl at the centre of this
real-life drama (1). Outraged and, understandably, very upset.
As more details have emerged about this story, the more awful
it seems.
The Daily Mail's version
runs like this: upon finding herself pregnant, 14-year-old
Melissa went to the family planning clinic for a pregnancy
test. When she said she did not want her parents to know,
she was referred to a 21-year-old 'outreach health worker',
part of the school's Community Child Health Service, which
aims to reduce unwanted pregnancies. The outreach worker referred
her to hospital, where arrangements were made for an early
medical abortion, using the 'abortion pill', which is taken
in two stages (2). During this time Melissa's school apparently
telephoned her mother to demand why her daughter was not at
school - before phoning back to say that she was at school,
when in fact they knew she was arranging the abortion (3).
Accompanied by a school-friend,
Melissa underwent the first stage of the abortion. Then her
mother found out, confronted her daughter, and Melissa apparently
changed her mind. By then, however, the drug had started working;
and Melissa had to take the second lot of pills to complete
the abortion, or wait for the inevitable miscarriage.
Reading the interviews with
Maureen, Melissa and Melissa's boyfriend, 14-year-old Dwain,
paints a picture of two deeply upset families, for whom all
of this is just a mess. But the way that this personal tragedy
- an extreme, rare case, about which it is impossible to know
all the facts - has been picked up and spun as a moral fable
on the evils of youth family planning policy is less than
helpful. The issue is less, as certain tabloid headlines have
put it, how the law could let this happen - for some years,
the law has allowed for minors to access abortions without
parental consent. What has changed are the broader cultural
assumptions about the relationship between professionals,
parents and teenagers.
Much commentary has focused
on how it can be legal for a 14-year-old girl to have an abortion
without her parents' consent, when parental consent is required
for other medical procedures - for example, appendectomies.
Unfortunately, however, abortion in the UK is never treated
just like any other medical procedure - always requiring two
doctors to make the decision that it is right to abort, rather
than the pregnant woman. This means that it is not such a
leap for doctors to take their own decision, as they appear
to have done in this case, that a teenager is competent enough
to consent to an abortion, rather than automatically referring
to the parents.
When it comes to teenagers,
things are complicated by the obvious tension between young
people's need for sexual health services that they can access
independently, and the fact that legally - and, in so many
ways, in reality - they are still children, dependent upon
their parents. When the outcome is, as in this case, such
a stark undermining of parental support and decision-making,
while leaving a young girl apparently barely supported in
an upsetting situation, it does seem that sexual health policy
has got this balance very wrong. You have to sympathise with
Maureen Smith's attitude to her daughter's young outreach
worker: 'How can a 21-year-old think she knows my child better
than I do?' (4)
But this same story can also
be read as an example of why teenagers do need independent,
confidential access to contraceptive and abortion services.
Maureen Smith has described how her attempts to talk to her
daughter about sex were rebuffed - Melissa cannot be the only
teenager keen to hide her sexual activity from her mum. From
the girl's own account, as told to the Mail, it seems
that she was given several opportunities to change her mind
about having an abortion and about involving her mother -
at every stage, she refused, and she apparently subsequently
decided not to have an abortion only after her mother found
out.
The alternative to a situation
in which teenagers cannot legally access contraceptive or
abortion services without their parents' knowledge is not
one where girls like Melissa have a better abortion experience
with the addition of support from their mother. It is one
where they are, if anything, more likely to go through with
an unwanted pregnancy, because they shy away from telling
their parents until it is too late. Fourteen years old is
indeed horribly young to undergo an abortion on your own,
but it is also horribly young to be lumbered with the responsibility
of an unwanted child. And it is worth bearing in mind that
newspapers like the Daily Mail, so keen to express
their horror at this girl's abortion, are equally keen to
express their horror about young teenagers who go on to become
mothers.
In these ways, this 'secret
abortion' scandal looks like a re-run of the tensions and
controversies that have beset teenage sexual health services
in the UK for the past two decades. But it has revealed a
new, and deeply worrying, tendency. The law already allows
minors in desperate circumstances to have abortions without
their parents' consent. What is new is the assumption that
they are likely to want an abortion without their parents'
knowledge.
In reality, as Ann Furedi
of the abortion and advice charity bpas explains, the
scenario in the Melissa Smith case is rare. The vast majority
of under-16s who seek abortions are accompanied by their mothers
or another 'significant adult', such as their aunt or their
boyfriend's mum. They do not seek protection from their families
by professionals - they know that their parents care deeply
about them, and that they need their support. Furthermore,
those who choose to keep their abortion a secret often do
so for well-considered, responsible reasons - for example,
one girl decided not to tell her mother because the mother
had recently miscarried her own baby, and the girl didn't
want to upset her. How members of a family relate to one another,
particularly around such issues as underage sex and abortion,
is dependent upon a number of factors, and a sensitive sexual
health service should allow for that.
But while it cannot be presumed
that every girl will benefit from her parents' knowledge of
her abortion, it is bizarre to presume that girls will automatically
want to keep something like this a secret. And it is this
presumption that seems to be creeping into sexual health policy.
The official, high-profile obsession with reducing teenage
pregnancy rates has led to increasing involvement by family
planning agencies, youth organisations, and, above all, schools,
in monitoring and advising upon teenagers' sexual behaviour.
From pouring increasing energy
into sex and relationships education to initiatives providing
contraception and emergency contraception through the school
nurse, the thrust of sexual health policy is to make it easier
for teenagers to avoid the consequences of sexual activity.
A pragmatic, even laudable policy perhaps - except that the
upshot is a greater professionalisation of teenage life advice,
and an implicit attack on parents.
It is one thing for teenagers
to want to conduct their sex lives without full disclosure
to their parents, and to have recourse to practical help when
things go wrong. Indeed, it would be a strange kind of society
where doting mums and dads became intimately acquainted with
their teenagers' sex lives. But it is another thing entirely
for teenagers to be fed the message, on continuous loop, that
their parents might cause them grief, and so the first port
of call in an emergency should be the school, the outreach
worker, the mentor or the counsellor. This is not a recognition
that it is dangerous to interfere into young people's attempts
at sexual experimentation - it is encouraging them to hold
their sex lives up for surveillance, not to their parents,
but to trendier professionals who are assumed to know best.
The number of professionals
in this case who apparently colluded, not only in providing
Melissa Smith with an abortion, but in keeping it from her
family, indicates that there is more going on here than simply
providing a confidential service for teenagers in a difficult
situation. There is an implicit assumption that parental involvement
will need to be leap-frogged in order to encourage pregnant
teenagers to make the 'right' decisions about contraception
and abortion. The notion that it is somehow easier for teenagers
to confide in their schools than their families, and that
the kind of professional support that they receive is somehow
better, is a disturbing example of the tendency to sideline
parents in dealing with young people's personal issues, in
favour of more and more intimate professional intervention.
This sits uneasily with the
trend to make parents more responsible - in the sense of being
directly punishable - for their children's bad behaviour.
As Maureen Smith put it, 'If my daughter had been truanting
from school or causing trouble in the classroom I would have
been informed' (5). And it has serious consequences for the
way in which young people are encouraged to view their relationships
with their schools and their families. As schools seek to
offload their own responsibilities, for education, discipline
and attendance in class, on to parents, they are usurping
parents' responsibilities for the emotional wellbeing of their
children - encouraging the exchange of confidences about sex,
home life and everything else, and promoting what seems to
be a more informal relationship with the pupils in their charge.
Whether this helps young people
is doubtful - the fact that it confuses them seems inevitable.
And the parents? Increasingly, it seems, nobody even pays
them a second thought.
(1) 'School fixes a secret abortion
for girl of 14', Daily Mail, 13 May 2004
(2) 'Abortion advice from
girl of 21', Daily Mail, 14 May 2004
(3) Mother
angry at secret abortion, BBC News, 13 May 2004
(4) 'Abortion advice from
girl of 21', Daily Mail, 14 May 2004
(5) 'School fixes a secret
abortion for girl of 14', Daily Mail, 13 May 2004
|