A Symposium on Birth Control THE reader familiar with Sir
James Marchant's activities as an uncompromising opponent of Birth Control is not surprised to find that these eight essays, by medical men -and women, are concerned at least as much with the religious, ethical, economic, social, and national aspects of the subject a with purely medical considerations. Indeed, a number of the
contributors start off so obviously biased on " moral" grounds that their opinions on the purely medical aspect must be viewed with grave suspicion.
Thus, Dame Mary Scharlieb begins by pretending that the term " Birth Control " includes infanticide and criminal abortion as well as prevention of conception. Of the latter, she says, " Many of us consider it a misdeed and see plenty of reasons against it." After this we are prepared for her incredibly stupid statement that " A certain number of young people think it well to abstain from the joys of parenthood because it is not considered to be the thing for the first baby to arrive during the first or second year after marriage." She points out that " the burden of a large family is only one factor " in causing ill health and exhaustion of mothers, and apparently implies that therefore it is of no importuner She admits that " given a small fixed income there will be a chance of better and more abundant supplies of the necessaries of life for a family of four than for a family of eight, and that the children's chances of good health and right development might be expected to be better in the small family than they arc in taro large," but inexplicably arrives at the conclusion that " The foundations of success in life are more likely to be found in the large family than in the small."
She stresses the fact that tuberculosis is not directly inherited and states that where the children of a tuberculous mother become tuberculous, propinquity has brought about infection But Schuster* has long ago shown that the children of a
tuberculous parent develop tuberculosis much more often than do the husbands of tuberculous women or the wives of
tuberculous men. There is thus something more than intimate association involved—the child of a tuberculous parent inherits, not the disease itself, but a lowered resistance to the disease.
In recommending the so-called " safe period " method of contraception, Dr. Scharlieb refers to some observations mad by a German observer named Siegel during the War (1916), but does not mention that in 1917 he wrote a bookt in which he states explicitly that later observations had convinced bits that no absolutely safe period exists. Is this omission due to ignorance of Siegel's later work, or.can it be that Dr. Scharliet
refrains from referring to evidence that is against her own view In either case it is unpardonable. When she comes to discus actual methods of contraception, it becomes obvious that bet " moral " objections have prevented her from investigating the subject properly—I was reminded of Roebuck Ramsdell in Shaw's Man and Superman :-
" I have in my hand a copy of the most infamous, the roo0 scandalous, the most mischievous, the most blackguardly boot that ever escaped burning at the hands of the common hangman, I have not read it : I would not soil my mind with such filth. • • The title is quite enough for me."
Dr. A. E. Giles, the eminent gynaecologist, starts with the statement that " Birth Control is an insult to Nature and violation of her laws." What does he mean by this ? Does he mean anything ? He might just as well say " Dentistel is an insult . . . &c.," or " Spectacles are an insult . • • A very great part of civilization might be similarly impugnet We do not expect much clear thinking or scientific objectivit from anybody who starts off in this vein—nor do we get . from Dr. Giles. When he deals with the supposed ill-effect of contraception, he quotes some statistics about certai tumours and proceeds to draw exactly the opposite concla4* from them that any scientifically objective person must. But fortunately the book is not all as bad as this. 31i Letitia Fairfield, Sir John Robertson and Sir Arthur Newshoill
*Eugenia. London, 1912. tOeuollte and Ungeteollte Schwankungen der Wciblichen FracAt barkeit. Berlin. 1917.
show a partisan spirit, and Professor Leonard Hill does not escape the same. imputation. But there are three excellent contributions from Sir Thomas Horder, Dr. Crichton-Miller and Dr. R. C. Buist.
Let me conclude by quoting a few notable sayings from the book :
• " There appears to be general agreement that such continence during marriage as is demanded by restriction of the number of offspring is not only an achievement very hard to obtain, but is often prejudicial both to the health of the parents and to connubial happiness." No doubt there is, and always will be, a certain small minority of couples to whom abstinence is a feasible and simple solution. This is due to each of the mates being undersexed. Such people should avoid generalising from their own experience. . . . It is a rentral truth of the Christian religion that salvation cannot come through the untempted. -Normal sex relations between husband and wife are not merely the gratification of animal appetite but are—or at any rate should be—a perfectly definite factor contributing to the adjustment on every plane--physical, mental and emotional. It is incorrect to regard sexual intercourse as being only justified by procreative intentions, just as it is incorrect to imagine that self-imposed sex abstinence can be carried on under marital conditions without involving real strain on both parties. In short, it is an inadequate view to regard sex relations as a means to the end of parenthood."
NORMAN HAIRE.,
Previous page
