UK removes "need for supportive parenting" from guidelines
I bet if you ask most people if they believe everything the media tells them, they will answer NO. However, what they may not realize is that they still do believe a lot of stuff that is misleading or outright false. I confess I used to be pretty naive. There was a time in my youth when I sheepishly believed what the newspapers, magazines and TV news fed me regarding the world. But over time, I’ve realize the error of being too trusting of the media.
For example, when the headlines scream "Unemployment on the rise!", you read the fine print and see that it really rose just from October to November, which is something that it tends to do every winter, just based on seasonal changes. So things aren’t really bad at all.
Sometimes, the news will report something truthful, but report it with a misleading slant. For example a headline that reads "Millions wasted on building more prisons, despite lower crime rates ever" could just as easily read "Crime rates drop to lowest ever as more criminals are kept behind bars".
There is a tendency for everything to be presented in a negative viewpoint. When home prices dropped, the headline was, of course, "Homeowners suffer worst drop in house value ever". However back a few years ago, when home prices soared, the headline was "Shortage of affordable homes worse than ever".
By the way, just because the media distorts and lies is not necessarily a grave sin in itself, as long as we, the readers, take caution to assess things intelligently and critically and as long as we are diligent in reading from a variety of different sources and synthesizing our own views. The worst thing is when people mindlessly accept everything at face value. Of course, everything I write is slanted from my own viewpoint. So make sure you to pursue reading opposing viewpoints from mine before making up your own mind. 
I came across an article today that provides abundant examples of how being critical in our thinking can help us from falling into the trap of becoming media lemmings.
Let’s start with the headline. The wording implies that prior to this news, women somehow were not given the "right" to have children without fathers. In the US, for example, single women and lesbian couples are free to pursue motherhood without fathers. The same is actually true of the UK from where this article hailed. The only difference is now the government will pay for it. It’s not a simple matter of gaining the right. There was always the right. The difference is that now, it can be demanded and have the NHS foot the bill.
This article mixes together some different topics besides the issue of fertility treatment without the need for fathers. It also talks about a ruling on abortion. In the splash photo, the caption mentions the 24-week abortion limit. In actually, it is showing a picture of an embryo that is less than 9 weeks. If a true 24-week pregnancy was pictured, you would be looking at something that appeared very much like a baby and not an embryonic organism. Very misleading.
Later in the article there is a quote that "children without fathers were more likely to have problems at school and with drink and drugs". This is misleading in the context of this particular article, because while it’s true that traditionally, fatherless children do have more behavioral issues, these are children of divorce or of involuntarily unwed moms. There is data that intelligent, financially stable, productive single mothers by choice have children who are as stable or more so than average.
I personally disagree with this policy change of not taking into account the need for a stable family unit when deciding on who gets free fertility care in the UK. Whereas in the US, there is a safety system in place that only financially stable women could afford to be single mothers by choice, thereby predicting a more stable future for the child. Now, in the UK, they will have the socialist policy that any single woman, even those on the dole, can have kids. The government will pay for the treatment. And the government will pay for the child’s upbringing. One can only guess what that will do to family and society there. Is it a surprise that marriage rates in the UK are the way they are?
August 20th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
I’m enjoying working my way through your back catalog here! I appreciate the glimpses into what happens in the RE’s office behind the scenes.
I do have to say, though, that I don’t agree with your logic about the US’s “safety system” that ensures that “only financially stable women could afford to be single mothers by choice”.
There are probably many women who could provide a loving, stable, financially independent homes for dearly-wanted children, and yet who cannot afford the $10-20K per attempt price ticket of IVF. That’s not ensuring that only financially stable women can have babies; it’s ensuring that only *wealthy* women can have babies.
And with regard to lesbians, there are many couples who can offer stable, loving homes. Many of those couples have spent years with both paying plenty into the NIH for straight couples’ birth control, pediatricians, etc. If those couples are having trouble conceiving (and many do try “low tech” home inseminations first, and only turn to medical assistance when it’s truly needed) then they’re as entitled to the medical treatment they need as anyone is.