Teen Birth-Control Ruling Splits Britain : High Court Backs Right to Get Pills Without Parents’ Consent

A fierce debate on child sexuality has erupted in the wake of a ruling by Britain’s highest court that birth control pills may be prescribed to girls under 16 without the consent of their parents.

Some regard the decision by five judges of the House of Lords as a necessary step to prevent unwanted teen-age pregnancy. Others see it as an invitation to child promiscuity.

The October ruling by the Law Lords, Britain’s Supreme Court, ended a legal crusade against the medical profession by Victoria Gillick, a 38-year-old mother of 10, but reopened controversy about sex among minors, parental rights and the role of family doctors.

A tearful Gillick, who believes parents should have complete control over their children’s sexual activity, said after the ruling that it was a “male charter to abuse and harm the young female population.”

On the other side, the British Medical Assn. greeted the judgment as a victory for common sense, while the Family Planning Assn. praised it as welcome proof that the judges live in the “real world.”

Gillick has been fighting the case in the courts since 1983, when a judge ruled against her by deciding that doctors should continue to use their discretion in prescribing contraceptives.

The Appeals Court overturned that ruling in December. But the highest court decided that girls under 16, who in the eyes of the law should not be having sexual intercourse at all, may nonetheless need to have contraceptives prescribed without their parents being consulted.

The controversial issue split even the law lords, however, who ruled against Gillick by only 3 to 2.

Lord Scarman said the law had to be kept in line with social experience, namely that girls were fully able to make a sensible decision about any matter before they were 16.

He was backed by Lord Fraser, who said parental rights were not for the parents’ benefit but for the child’s. To abandon confidentiality between doctor and patient could expose many young people to unwanted pregnancy, he said.

Supporting Gillick, on the other hand, Lord Brandon said contraceptive advice would encourage young people to have sex.

“There are many things which a girl under 16 needs to practice, but sex is not one of them,” he said.

10,000 Pregnancies

About 17,000 British girls under 16 were taking the pill in 1984, a third of them without their parents’ knowledge. Another stark reality is that 10,000 girls under 16 get pregnant every year. Two-thirds of them have abortions.

“If what you’re trying to do is protect teen-agers from pregnancy, you don’t do it by stopping them (from) getting help,” said Dr. Sheila Abdullah, who works with young people in Liverpool.

The medical association has said that it will try to involve parents when possible, but that some adolescents are clearly bent on starting sexual relationships behind their parents’ backs.

“It has to be recognized that not all children are fortunate enough to have parents who are able or willing to give them support,” said John Dawson of the association’s ethics committee.

For many 15-year-olds during the 10 months the pro-Gillick ruling was in force--during which time they could not get their birth control pill prescriptions refilled--the thought of confronting what they believed sure would be their parents’ disapproval simply proved too much.

In the words of one girl, they just kept sleeping with their boyfriends and “hoped for the best” until their 16th birthdays.

There are no national figures on the effects, although some evidence is available. Dr. Diana Birch, monitoring figures in the London district of Camberwell, reported 33 schoolgirl pregnancies in her area this year, up from 11 in all of 1984.