Shock, Horror, on sexual health panel

A group which is opposed to abortion in all circumstances and favours an abstinence-based approach to sex education has been appointed to advise the government on sexual health.

The Life organisation has been invited to join a new sexual health forum set up to replace the Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV.

Stuart Cowie, Life\’s head of education, said: \”We are delighted to be invited into the group, representing views that have not always been around on similar tables in the past.\”

In contrast, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) has been omitted from the forum despite its long-term position on the previous advisory group and 40-year track record in providing pregnancy counselling nationwide.

How terrible, eh?

Now, take a deep breath and look at the total composition of the panel:

The forum consists of representatives of the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV; the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; the Association of Directors of Public Health; the British HIV Association; the Terrence Higgins Trust; Brook; the Family Planning Association; the Sex Education Forum and National Children\’s Bureau; Marie Stopes International; and Life.

Ah, see? The views of the BPAS on anything at all will be indistinguishable from those of Marie Stopes or the FPA. So what we\’re actually getting is a broadening of the views being put forward without any loss of views being put forward.

And yes, this is the right thing to do in a democracy: all views should be represented, remember? Life may be a bit odd (their views on condoms seem to be less than scientific) but there are quite a number of people who don\’t think that abortion is the solution to anything (other than the question \”How can we kill kiddies?\”) and shouldn\’t their views be represented?

5 comments on “Shock, Horror, on sexual health panel

  1. Of course they shouldn’t be represented, and their appointment suggests that whoever is in charge doesn’t understand stakeholder theory or stakeholding itself.

    The purpose of stakeholding is to reach consensus. Consensus is the ideal method of governance. It is thus vitally important that everybody invited to consense agrees with one another before the process starts. Failure to fulfill this criterion can lead to conflict, and that is Very Bad.

    Quite obviously, the person responsible for this failure is in urgent need of remedial socio-political education.

  2. @2
    Oh that’s easy to explain.
    Radiation is hard for the layman to understand, yes? Therefore, for the committee to be representative of all interests they need, not only someone who doesn’t understand it, but more importantly an expert in not understanding it.
    Entirely logical.

  3. The first listed BASHH, is a charity funded by the Health Ministry ie a civil service fakecharity. I know the Terrence Higgins Trust is a fakecharity (the guy was called Terry but that wasn’t posh enough). Most of the others look the same &/or clubs of government employees.

    So we now have, perhaps only 1 token speaker in a quango whose advice to the government (and through the likes of the BBC quango, to the voter) is otherwise bound to be that that we need more government, more government employees and spending and more government regulators.

    Business as usual.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>