In this issue:
Annual General Meeting & Conference 15 June 2002
Family Life Award 2002
Those Family Life Awards in Full!
A Date for Your Diary
Inquiry on Sexual Health
The Failure of Sex Education
Annual General Meeting & Conference
15 June 2002
The Annual General Meeting and Conference at the Royal Air Force Club, Piccadilly, was once again a good day where members got to know each other, listened to some very well-informed and inspiring speakers and generally stiffened their resolve.
Some 86 members attended and there were apologies from another 65. Sadly, both Valerie and Denis Riches had been unwell and they could attend for only part of the time. Denis said that Valerie was not going to miss an annual meeting for the first time in thirty years! It must be the first conference where neither of them spoke but, officially and unofficially, there were messages to them of thanks for all their work and encouragement to get well soon. Happily, they could stay for lunch and talk with speakers and members.
When the official business of apologies and so on had been efficiently dealt with, the Chairman, Arthur Cornell, gave his report. He said that the committee were grateful for all the support from members but we were all challenged to keep raising money to maintain the work that we did. He said that under the guise of caring for children, exactly the opposite was happening by such means as: lack of any financial support for marriage; the proliferation of no-fault divorce; the reduction in the age of consent for homosexuals; the proposal to allow unmarried couples, including homosexuals, to adopt children; the idea that adults had a ‘right to children’; and the general sexual anarchy. The chairman gave a number of disturbing statistics and said that those with power very often were refusing to listen to any arguments or figures that disturbed their prejudices. There was a ‘cult of deception’. Nevertheless, one of the most important things that our organisation did was to provide research and factual data.
In his Hon Treasurer’s report, Simon Ling, explaining the accounts and answering questions, said that the new administrative arrangements had had a good first year. Money, though, is always short and he asked all to try to recruit new members.
In the Director’s report, Robert Whelan stated that we must continue to work against the spirit of the age. He gave as an example, the fact that government grants had been withdrawn from National Marriage Week, but given to lesbian and gay societies. He affirmed that, though we would always be hard-pressed for money, this was much better than taking government money because such funds always brought limitations on what one could do or say. Moreover, the withdrawing or delaying of funds, once accepted, could wreck an organisation.
During the year, a factsheet on the morning after pill had been produced by Norman Wells, and sent to every secondary school, every PSHE adviser and all health authorities and community health councils. There had been a contribution to the House of Commons Health Committee’s inquiry into sexual health. The main project had been the review of the government’s teenage pregnancy strategy. Next year’s projects would include a study on the Netherlands; a factsheet on condoms, by Dr Trevor Stammers; work with the Challenge Team on abstinence education; and the appearance of The Other Three Rs on the internet. Robert Whelan paid tribute to the staff in the office and said that the office could make use of volunteer help with a variety of office tasks. Possible volunteers should contact him to find out more.
He then introduced Rebecca O’Neill who talked about bringing a successful American programme, based on the book The Art of Loving Well, to the UK. The book is aimed at teenagers and is concerned with character education but, since it works through stories rather than lectures, it has a great deal of impact. She was working with others to produce lesson notes for teachers and the material should be available for schools from next spring.
Hugh McKinney’s Parliamentary report was delivered in person but had naught for our comfort. He showed how things were being twisted. For instance, the Marriage Support Programme had been changed to the Marriage and Relationship Support Programme. He strongly agreed with the Director, Robert Whelan, that our organisation should not take government money. On the Diane Pretty case, he said that though the liberal media had referred to it as a ‘right to die’ issue, it was more correctly called a ‘campaign for the right to be killed’. On the clause to allow homosexuals to adopt children, he showed how craftily a private member’s amendment had been tagged on to a government bill to appear to absolve the government of responsibility. The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had voted to allow homosexuals to adopt children. The Liberal Democrats had also supported the homosexual amendments. Only the Conservatives had voted against, as a party, Iain Duncan Smith imposing a three-line whip.
Hugh finished on a gloomy but realistic note saying that we had almost reached rock bottom: there were very few ‘rights’ for which homosexuals could continue to campaign.
Since there were no resolutions, the meeting went on to re-elect as trustees, Mr Simon Ling, Mrs Valerie Riches, and Mr Robert Whelan and as committee members, Dr John Guly, Mrs Cornelia Oddie, Mr Denis Riches and Dr Trevor Stammers.
Local Activities
Once again, the reports on local activities were a very important and useful part of the day.
From Northern Ireland, Mary Russell, reported on how the liberal establishment was becoming entrenched. There was a battle against sex education in schools. She had been disappointed with the lack of support or even interest from the four main churches, none of whom had replied to her letters. Soon there could be the appointment of a so-called Children’s Commissioner. A big battle was looming with people, including the NSPCC, trying to prevent any kind of parental physical correction and there is a lobby for birth control material to be given to the under-16s. Mary Russell was especially grateful for research documents from our headquarters.
For Tamezin magazine for teenagers, Hilary Schlesinger could not be present but she sent a written report. Despite some loss of funding, the magazine was still being published and was being established in some schools. Also, Sainsbury’s was, on a trial basis, allowing its sale.
The Republic of Ireland report was also read. The splendid booklet, Response, is still being published and contains statistics and information to enable people to be aware of what is going on. The Irish branch was founded in 1980 after a visit by Mrs Riches and is still going strong. There had been a lot of anguish about the abortion referendum where, because pro-life forces were split, the outcome was unsatisfactory. This provides a warning to us all.
From Cornwall, there was the usual vigorous report from Miss Susan Pernet and Miss Ann Whitaker, last year’s winner of the Family Life Award. There had been a great battle over the implementation of the government’s teenage pregnancy strategy in Cornwall. By dint of hard work – acquiring lists of supporters, informing them and asking them to attend council meetings – the council had conceded that there should be a special consultation day about alternative strategies to reduce teenage pregnancy. Valerie Riches, Nick Pollard, John Guly, and Lynette Burrows had been invited to speak. Miss Whitaker, forthright and cheerful as ever, reminded us all that we should be in touch with each other. “What we have done in Cornwall can be done elsewhere.” Susan Pernet asked herself rhetorically the question, “Why do we do it?” and supplied the answer: “Because of our concern for vulnerable young people.”
Mrs Ann Allen gave a report from Scotland. She reported that the euphoria about devolution was disappearing and being replaced by disillusionment. The Scottish equivalent of Section 28 to prohibit homosexual promotion in schools has been repealed. Each local authority was responsible for its own sex education programme but a victory had been won in that explicit material was being withdrawn because of the work of Family Education Trust members and others. This shows the value of bringing the fight into the open. The next battle would be against those who wished to ban any kind of smacking by parents and against those wanting to go soft on drugs. Despite independence, the Scottish parliament had said that it would follow Westminster on the adoption of children by homosexuals.
Mrs Sue Relf gave an encouraging account of the spread of the work of the Challenge Team. Teams of young people spoke to other young people about chastity. Originally started in Canada, Challenge teams were increasingly being invited into schools in Britain. All this was not without a struggle. Her local PSHE adviser had written to schools telling them to be wary of inviting outside teams but, paradoxically, this had backfired and given good publicity. Sue would like to see Challenge teams covering the whole of Britain.
Mrs Eileen Wojciechowska spoke of her work in opposing Bodyzone in Oxfordshire. Her effort was the more difficult because she had been working by herself. Her anxieties started when she simply looked at some of the material that her 13-year-old daughter had brought home from the local comprehensive school. Eileen described herself as ‘the fly in the ointment’ who objected, asked to see material, and had meetings with the headteacher and governors. Bodyzone material tries to separate children from their parents and emphasizes how children can get advice without their parents’ knowledge. She mentioned an entirely inappropriate ‘sex quiz’ that is given to children.
Afternoon Conference
When it came to The Family Life Award for 2002, it was no surprise, therefore, to anyone but herself that Eileen Wojciechowska was the recipient. Eileen was so genuinely surprised that she could not at first come out to receive it since she had taken off her shoes! However, Eileen’s courage, perseverance and initiative were all praised. She had worked with the Oxford Life group but had not sought to take any lead. She simply reacted to the injustice of her daughter and others being targeted by enemies of the family. The generous spontaneous applause for Eileen showed how much the members valued what she was doing and how it was a model for those working elsewhere.
The two main speakers in the afternoon session were again both of very high quality. Dr Catherine Hakim, Senior Research Fellow in Sociology at the London School of Economics, spoke about Models of Family Life in the 21st Century, a subject on which she is an international expert having written an authoritative book, Work-Lifestyle Choices in the 21st Century, published by the Oxford University Press. This is to be followed next year by Modern Work and Lifestyle Choices in Britain and Spain.
Dr Hakim said that the motive for her research work was to look at what women actually did and wanted to do as opposed to what the European Community (EC) and others said women ought to do and want. Dr Hakim found that there is no consensus on symmetrical role models of the family, as the EC assumes. The majority of people, and especially married women of working age, prefer marriages with different roles for husband and wife. The same is true for the rest of Europe; so the EC has got its policies wrong. The egalitarian idealism of young people does not last beyond the age of 25. There is a rapid adjustment of preference after marriage and childbirth. It is not true than men impose the housewife role on women or that men seek to constrain women’s paid work, as feminists argue. On the contrary, men are ahead of women in seeking to share income-earning as well as family work.
Dr Hakim’s brilliant research, which she presented so clearly, showed different ideas among women. The policy implications of all this are as follows: the tax system should support single-earner couples, or at least should not discriminate against them; there should be more public policy support for non-working mothers and full-time homemakers; Britain should drop the EC’s aim of imposing the Scandinavian model of the family and the related EC goal of 70% of women of working age in employment, the same as men.
Dr Hakim’s excellent talk was followed by just such another. Mrs Jill Kirby spoke about Broken Hearts, her booklet recently published by the Centre for Policy Studies. First she observed how, as George Orwell had prophesised, the very language that we use was being deliberately manipulated to attack the family, and hasten social decline. Thus ‘partner’ was used instead of ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ and even such words as ‘mother’ and ‘father’ were being avoided.
Mrs Kirby gave revealing figures about the decline in the number of married households, pointing out how this created big differences in income between ‘work rich’ households, where two people worked, and lone mothers who were not in paid work. Yet all the research showed that marriage was better for children even before birth. Britain had appallingly high rates of infant mortality and the main reason for this was that the mother was often young and alone. Children in step families were three times more likely to run away from home and 25% actually do so before the age of 16, some being as young as 11. Research showed that marriage is better for the health and well-being of adults, too. Recent research from Warwick University had shown that, on average, marriage adds three years to a person’s life.
The afternoon sessions were chaired, as usual, by Mr Peter Dawson with his characteristic aplomb. In making the vote of thanks, I was able to thank Peter and all those who made this such a good conference, especially our two distinguished and accomplished guest speakers. Once again, we had been made aware of many problems for the family and for young people, but, once again, we had all been inspired by the conference to fight against these evils.
Eric Hester, Vice Chairman
FAMILY LIFE AWARD 2002
Eileen Wojciechowska
The 2002 Family Life Award was presented to Eileen Wojciechowska in recognition of her initiative, courage and perseverance in support of the family.
Following her marriage to Jan, Eileen gave up her career with a multinational company and has devoted the past thirteen years to the care of their three children, Kasia, Ben and Tom. In recent years, she has also served as a Learning Support Assistant at a local primary school. Although the family has always been close to her heart, witnessed by her membership of the Oxford Life group, she had not been one to engage in active campaigns.
However, that was to change in March 2001, when she stumbled across a leaflet in her daughter’s schoolbag about Bodyzone, a health clinic operated by Oxfordshire Health Authority, which was shortly to be introduced into the local secondary school. The clinic was to employ the services of a sexual health nurse, who was empowered to provide under-age pupils with ‘contraception, pregnancy tests, supplies and advice’ – all without the knowledge or consent of the child’s parents.
From that day on, Eileen has worked tirelessly on behalf of children and families in her area, driven by a firm conviction that a confidential advice service for young people will serve only to undermine parental responsibility and weaken the relationship between parents and their children. She has held meetings with the director of family planning for Oxfordshire and with the headteacher and the chair of governors at her daughter’s school. She has also raised the issue in parents’ meetings at the school and been featured in the local press and church newspapers.
With passion and good humour, Eileen has pressed on in the face of indifference, apathy and outright hostility with an unswerving devotion to a cause which she knows is in the best interests of children and families everywhere.
Those Family Life Awards in Full!
1987 Mr Denis Riches and Mr Gordon Gillick
1988 Mrs Ellen Gordon
1989 Mrs Margaret Tritton
1990 Mr and Mrs John and Patsy Graham
1991 Mr and Mrs Richard and Anna Lines
1992 Mrs and Mrs Michael and Marion Stone
1993 Mrs Patricia Morgan
1994 Mme Birthe Lejeune
1995 Mrs Mary Russell
1996 Mr and Mrs David and Lorna Graham
1997 Mr and Mrs Tom and Jenny Bacon
1998 Mrs Lynette Burrows
1999 Mr and Mrs Norman and Nicola Wells
2000 Mrs Valerie Riches
2001 Miss Ann Whitaker
2002 Mrs Eileen Wojciechowska
A Date for your Diary
The fifth annual general meeting of the society will be held on Saturday 28 June 2003.
Some recent publications
We can supply the recent publications from both of our Annual Conference speakers:
Work-Lifestyle Choices in the 21st Century: Preference Theory, by Dr Catherine Hakim, Oxford University Press, 356pp, £17.00 plus £1.20 pp.
Broken Hearts: Family Decline and the Consequences for Society, by Jill Kirby, Centre for Policy Studies, 37pp, £5.00 plus £1.00 pp.
We also have some copies left of the following excellent publications:
HIV & Aids in Schools: The Political Economy of Pressure Groups and Miseducation, by Barrie Craven, Pauline Dixon, Gordon Stewart & James Tooley, IEA, 97pp, £5.00 plus £1.00 pp.
Children as Trophies: Examining the Evidence on Same-Sex Parenting, by Patricia Morgan, Christian Institute, 159pp, £7.00 plus £1.00 pp.
Family Education Trust submission to the House of Commons Health Committee Inquiry on Sexual Health
1. The Family Education Trust was founded in 1971 to carry out research into the causes and consequences of family breakdown, and to publicise the findings of such research.
2. The Trust has always made the welfare of young people its special concern, and adopted the operating title of Family and Youth Concern to express this. We are therefore particularly concerned that the rapid spread of sexually transmitted infections is concentrated amongst those in the younger age groups, where such infections can result in maximum harm.
3. We would like to draw attention to three key areas where much unequivocal research is available but appears to be unknown to policy makers.
A. Sexual Health is improved in two-parent families.
4. Data from the 2000 UK National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (NATSAL) study (1) clearly shows that the children of two-parent families are far less likely to have intercourse under the age of 16, or under the age of 18, than those from other backgrounds (1).
5. Those from two-parent families are also more likely to use contraception and to be more sexually competent at first intercourse (1). Girls from two-parent homes are less likely to have an abortion before age 18 (1). Both boys and girls from two- parent homes are less likely to have an STI (1).
6. Support for parents in helping them to stay together is a totally neglected imperative in teenage sexual health. The vital input of two-parent families in improving their children’s sexual health is beyond dispute and there is much evidence to back the large impact of family structure on sexual health (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,).
7. Since the majority of two-parent families will be married couples, we also note that resources put into marriage support services will also indirectly improve the sexual health of teenagers.
8. We recommend the establishment of sex education programmes (such as that used by Blake et al (3)) which facilitate involvement and participation from parents.
9. We also encourage the promotion of projects enabling parents to communicate with their children more effectively about sexual behaviours and values such as the Parent Line series of books (9).
10. We would strongly discourage the promotion and funding of school sex education materials which alienate parents, such as those recently recommended by the Scottish Executive (10, 11) which have subsequently been banned by at least four Scottish councils.
B. Condom promotion on its own does not improve sexual health
11. Far too much unsubstantiated reliance is put into condom promotion, when there is little or no convincing evidence that this works on its own (12,13).
The problems with condom promotion include:-
a) 80% of unplanned pregnancies result from contraceptive (mainly condom) failure rather than non-availability of contraception (14,15).
b) Condom use at first intercourse is not a good indicator of sexual health promotion success since
i) even when they are used, in up to a third of cases they are put on too late (16)
ii) their use declines with the length of a sexual relationship (16)
iii) they have a 3% failure rate even when used perfectly (17)
c) in use by teenagers, condom failure is around 14% (i.e. one in seven) (17)
d) Risk displacement means that more condom use may encourage greater frequency of intercourse which then negates the protection conferred by the condom in the first place (18)
e) There is no evidence that condoms protect against the most frequent STIs such as Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) which causes both genital warts and cervical cancer (19,20)
12. We recommend that condom distribution programmes must take into account the known complication of risk displacement and be accompanied by education about the importance of partner selection and reduction. The lack of protection against HPV from condoms should also be made known more widely.
C. There has been gross imbalance in the emphasis given to HIV/AIDS instead of other much more widely prevalent STIs.
13. The myth that “everyone is at risk of AIDS” needs to be clearly refuted (21). There are over a million new presentations of STIs at GUM clinics each year, but only about 3,000 new reports of HIV infection (22). More people die from falling downstairs in the UK each year than from AIDS (23). The very title of the Government’s strategy unfortunately perpetuates an unwarranted emphasis on AIDS for a Western nation. The focus of education needs to be on those diseases which are most prevalent – chlamydia and HPV in particular, which cause high levels of infertility and cancer of the cervix and anus.
14. We recommend that resources be transferred from AIDS education into programmes which emphasise the diseases which are most prevalent and represent the greatest threat to health to the vast majority of the population, whilst still giving due weight to the seriousness of HIV infection.
Conclusion
15. The spread of STIs, particularly amongst young people, has become a cause of concern to policy makers and members of the medical profession. Unfortunately, the response has tended to emphasise early detection and treatment, with much less attention being paid to primary prevention. In so far as prevention is envisaged, there is a reliance on the use of condoms which, for the reasons given above, we feel to be unwarranted (22).
16. The most realistic approach to reducing the spread of STIs amongst young people is to encourage the postponement of the onset of sexual relationships, or their discontinuation if they have already begun at a young age. We regret that the Government’s national strategy for sexual health and HIV and its teenage pregnancy strategy appear to attach little or no importance to this (22, 24).
Trevor Stammers BSc, MRCGP, DRCOG, DPAB
on behalf of Family Education Trust
5 June 2002
References
1. Wellings K, Nanchanahal K, MacDowall W et al Sexual behaviour in Britain: early heterosexual experience Lancet 2001 358 1843-50
2. Stammers T Teenage pregnancies are influenced by family structure BMJ 2002 324 51
3. Blake S, Simkin L, Ledsky R et al Effects of parent-child communications intervention on young adolescents’ risk for early sexual intercourse Fam Plan Persp 2001 33 52-61
4. Ellen JM, Adler N Sexual initiation and developmental changes Sex Trans Dis 2001 28 533-4
5. Rosenthal SL et al Sexual initiation-predictors and developmental trends Sex Trans Dis 2001 28 527-532
6. Santelli JS et al The association of sexual behaviours with socioeconomic status, family structure and race/ethnicity among US adolescents Am J Pub Health 2000 90 1582-88
7. DiIorio C et al Communication about sexual issues: mothers, fathers and friends J Adol Health 1999 24 181-9
8. Cohen M Adolescent sexual activity as an expression of nonsexual needs Pediatr Annals 1995 24 324-329
9. e.g. Chalke S Your Child and Sex Hodder London 2000
10. Cohen J, Wilson P Taking sex seriously Healthwise 1994
11. Cohen J The primary school sex and relationships education pack Healthwise 1999 12. Paton D The economics of family planning and underage conceptions J Health Econ 2002 21 207-225
13. Kirby D Making condoms available in schools West J Med 2000 172 159-152
14. Pearson VAH, Owen MR, Phillips DP, Pereira Gray DJ, Marshall MN. Pregnant teenagers’ knowledge and use of emergency contraception. BMJ 1995; 310:164
15. Williams ES. Contraceptive failure may be a major factor in teenage pregnancy. BMJ 1995; 311:807
16. de Visser RO, Smith AM When always isn’t enough: implications of the late application of condoms for the validity and reliability of self-reported condom use AIDS Care 2000 12 221-4
17. Fu H, Darroch L et al Contraceptive failure rates: New estimates from the National Survey of Family Growth Fam Plann Persp 1999 31 56-63
18. Richens J, Imrie J, Copas A Condoms and seat belts: the parallels and the lessons Lancet 2000 355 400-3
19. Scientific evidence on condom effectiveness for sexually transmitted disease prevention. Report from the USA Dept of Health and Human Services 2000 www.naid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf
20. McClean HL, Hillman RJ Anogenital warts and condom use – a survey of information giving Genitourinary Med 1997 73 203-6
21. Mastro TD, de Vincenzi I Probabilities of sexual HIV-1 transmission AIDS 1996 10 S75-S82
22. Better prevention, better services, better sexual health: The national strategy for sexual health and HIV Department of Health July 2001
23. Craven B, Dixon P, Stewart G, Tooley J HIV and AIDS in schools Institute of Economic Affairs 2001
24. Why the government’s teenage pregnancy strategy is destined to fail Family Education Trust 2002
The failure of sex education
There is probably no subject with which our society has been more involved over the last thirty years than sex education and the provision of contraceptives to young teens. We have always argued that it is a mistake to look to such policies to reduce teenage pregnancy and the incidence of sexually transmitted infections, and that they may even have the opposite effect.
Recent months have seen the publication of important pieces of research in both areas. We reported in the last Bulletin on Dr David Paton’s econometric analysis, published in the Journal of Health Economics,[1] which showed that contraceptive provision may be associated with an increase in underage conceptions. In June the British Medical Journal carried two studies on the questionable effectiveness of sex education.
In the first, 8,430 pupils aged between 13 and 15 in the Tayside and Lothian regions of Scotland participated in a programme called SHARE (Sexual Health and Relationships: Safe, Happy and Responsible) which was designed to reduce unsafe sexual practices. It was an elaborate and well-resourced showpiece programme, involving the training of 80 teachers and delivered over two years of the curriculum, with a follow-up of the participants two years later. Young people in the control group received more conventional sex education. The follow-up revealed that the programme had made no impact. Those who participated were not less likely to have become sexually active or to have practised ‘unsafe sex’.[2]
The second study reviewed the effectiveness of sex education in delaying sexual intercourse, improving the use of birth control and reducing unwanted pregnancies by examining the best research available. After eliminating studies which were methodologically weak, the authors concentrated on 26 randomised controlled trials described in 22 reports, all in the USA. The conclusion was that the programmes ‘did not delay the initiation of sexual intercourse in young women or young men; did not improve use of birth control by young women at every intercourse or at last intercourse or by young men at every intercourse or at last intercourse; and did not reduce pregnancy rates in young women’.[3]
You can’t put it much plainer than that. As Professor Frank Furedi of Kent University wrote in an article for the Daily Telegraph, there is absolutely nothing that should surprise us in these studies: ‘From a pedagogic point of view, sex and relationships education has little merit. It is not based on an academic discipline. It lacks a corpus of ideas that can intellectually stimulate children. Unlike genuine subjects, such as maths or English, it does not contribute to the development of abstract thought nor does it enhance appreciation for our understanding of life…. The message is clear: let’s stop wasting time and energy on sex education and concentrate on providing real education’.[4]
References
1 Paton, D., ‘The economics of family planning and underage conceptions’, Journal of Health Economics, 21 (2002) 207-225.
2 Wight, D. et al., ‘Limits of teacher delivered sex education: interim behavioural outcomes from randomised trial’, British Medical Journal, Vol. 324, 15 June 2002.
3 DiCenso, A. et al., ‘Interventions to reduce unintended pregnancies among adolescents: systematic review of randomised controlled trials’, British Medical Journal, Vol. 324, 15 June 2002.
4 Furedi, F., ‘Sex education or real education?’, The Daily Telegraph, 3 July 2002.