Letters to the Editor
Sex education
Sir: On August 31 you took the almost unprecedented step of publishing a letter which Rubinstein, Nash & Co, solicitors, wrote to you on behalf of the Family Planning Association, drawing attention to 'incorrect and defamatory statements in Mrs P. D. Riches's letter (August 3) and asking for an apology and correction and for the customary payment of costs and damages. You chose not to publish your reply to our solicitors offering "to consider printing a reasoned argument in rebuttal of the points put forward by Mrs Riches," which offer was still under consideration by the FPA. Instead, you took the further unprecedented step of allowing another attack to be made on the FPA in Patrick Cosgrave's article "The politics of sex education," which not only repeated one of the defamatory statements appearing in Mrs Riches's letter but contained other gross misrepresentations as well as quotations out of context. Letters subsequently published in The Spectator based their support for Dr Cosgrave's views on the FPA on false premises.
I would now ask that you publish this rebuttal. In the interests of space, I will confine myself to the principal errors of fact and omission. But first I think a few general remarks about the position of the FPA in society would be appropriate.
The FPA had the choice of limiting its activities to the health and welfare aspects of family planning or of taking part in the wider discussion on the need to protect adolescents from the serious dangers of ignorance about sexual matters in today's changing climate. We chose to be part of the general movement in this difficult and delicate field of sexual enlightenment by offering encouragement to vulnerable sections of the community to become informed about sexual relationships.
Clearly this brings the FPA into the contentious field of sex education where views differ sharply. The FPA does not therefore expect to be exempt from criticism from those who, on moral or other grounds, profoundly disagree with present trends towards open discussion and with more widely available education on sex and contraception. What we do object to is misrepresentation, whether deliberate or unintentional. It is because Mrs Riches and subsequently Dr Cosgrave have indulged in misrepresentation that the FPA seek restitution by the publication of this letter.
1. It is palpably untrue to say that the EPA is not an association for the planning of families, but (whatever this may mean) one for the "prevention of birth." Among the FPA's stated objects and services is the provision of medical advice and assistance in cases of involuntary sterility: the FPA is currently operating 30 sub-fertility clinics, a fact which Dr Cosgrave ignores.
2. The fact that the FPA lists and stocks the publications of others does not necessarily indicate *that we are in agreement with all the views they express. It is grossly misleading of Dr Cosgrave to suggest that we commend such practices as anal intercourse.
3. It is a travesty of Sir Keith Joseph's reply to Mr Biggs-Davison's question in the House of Commons (February 28, 1973) to suggest that it was "redolent of disapproval" of what the FPA was doing
and that it was based on "feelings of repugnance." Sir Keith prefaced his answer by painting out that the FPA "is working in a difficult area of morals where, whatever views any one person may hold, there are clearly wide differences of opinion." In referring to the six extracts brought to his attention from books available at our headquarters, Sir Keith said: "Three extracts were quoted in my view out of context and are not, again in my view, offensive when read in context." The other three were from a booklet from another body. When read in context, there is nothing "weasel and cowardly" about Sir Keith's words.
4. Similarly with Dr Cosgrave's quotation from the FPA leaflet 'Straight facts about sex and birth control.' The FPA's answer to the question "Does it matter that much if a girl gets pregnant?" begins "Of course it does — to the girl, her boyfriend and the baby. She and the boy must decide beforehand that they really want a baby and give it all the love and care it needs." Dr Cosgrave omits this and thereby yet again misrepresents the FPA.
In conclusion, the FPA would welcome honest investigation into its involvement in sex education as leading to a better understanding of its activities. The Association, a registered charity is about to start a phased hand-over of its nearly one thousand clinics to the National Health Service. We are confident that our continuing work in family planning will be seen to be as valuable in the future as our development of the clinic service has been in the past.
John Geffen Director, The Family Planning Association, Margaret Pyke House, 27-35 Mortimer Street, London WI
Previous page
