Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Freedom of the press is self-explanatory
- Dr. Herbert H. Nehrlich (21 May 2004)
-
More worrying still!
- Steven W Kelly (21 May 2004)
-
Freedom is a balancing act
- Will Callaghan (21 May 2004)
-
Prejudice or honest dabate?
- Arnold Seglenieks (22 May 2004)
-
Accuracy please!
- Christopher M. Binns (24 May 2004)
-
Homosexuality and paedophilia
- William H James (1 June 2004)
-
They are both minorities
- Edwin Lutyens (1 June 2004)
-
Re: They are both minorities
- Akheel A Syed (3 June 2004)
-
Defensive Narratives
- Col B. Bashir (4 June 2004)
|
|
|||
|
Dr. Herbert H. Nehrlich, Private Practice Bribie Island, Australia 4507
Send response to journal:
|
While I don't want to buy into the debate over " bigotry" I must correct the author out of principle. "that......a medical Journal should publish and BY DOING SO ENDORSE...". I am known for accusing my wife of being mostly devoid of logic but this takes the cake. THe BMJ has graciously published over 90 of my comments but I wouldn't imagine in my wildest dreams that Sharon Davies or Tony Delamothe ENDORSE my opinions. Sometimes, even I don't endorse them in the cold light of the next morn. And Dr. Richard Smith, on his morning "constitutional" of sheer pedal power, might still be puzzled about some of my creations. The very bigotry that is being discussed here has raised its head immediately between scapula and sternocleidomastoid of the author of this counterattack. And there is a real possibility that she doesn't REALLY understand the meaning of the word. As they say, "some of my best friends are poofters", but I am really only saying this to be nice. The nice Professor from Singapore who -by his own admission- only shows his true (pink?) colours on Sundays has gone away, unconvinced of my stand that Homosexuality is NOT an illness. Perhaps he is plotting. The British Medical Journal is, no doubt in my mind, the most down- to- earth forum on this planet today. To attack it for allowing someone to voice his views is downright laughable. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Steven W Kelly, Medical Officer 2250 (Australia)
Send response to journal:
|
Rather than worrying about a non-comparison, Boynton should perhaps worry about her(?) own bigotry, which prevents an accurate understanding of an issue. Igbokwe's letter does not equate homosexuality with paedophilia - it just doesn't! Instead, he(?) equates the shift of opinion on one issue with a shift of opinion on another. Both shifts are from a less-liberal to a more liberal view, and each has its own implications. However, it is Boynton who leaps to the equation of the issues, and it is this lazy (or bigoted?) approach to reading which demonstrates a frightful aspect of our endeavour to further knowledge and understanding through sharing of opinions and observations. All strength to Nehrlich's defence of the paradigm of editorial freedom! "If we cannot now end our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity." - (thanks, JFK) Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Will Callaghan, Editor, menshealth.co.uk Rodale Ltd, W1G 9AD
Send response to journal:
|
"Endorse" is a strong word. I don't endorse everything that's posted on the message boards of the site I edit, as I'm sure the BMJ doesn't endorse every letter that's published in it's print or electronic versions. But I do keep tabs on what's being said, and EVERY post involves a judgement call, even if it's just a cursory glance. Freedom of speech is a right worth dying for, but we can't just go around saying whatever we like. It's a balancing act, and one that I have to perform as an editor many times a day. Why? Well it's the age old individual vs. community argument. If by testing the boundaries of my freedoms I cause someone else to lose theirs, then I should at least have to explain myself. Forgive me for paraphrasing the original letter, but what I believe was being said was: "homosexuality was bad and now it's accepted. Paedophilia was bad, so if we follow the same rules of play, how long will it be before that's accepted too?" You can slice this so many ways, e.g. what's the world coming to?, homosexuality = evil and so on according to life experience, political persuasion and more. As Tony Blair knows all too well, it's not just what it is, it's what it smells like. So as editor, would you print and be dammed? For the record, I wouldn't have published Igbokwe's letter on it's own. If someone posted this as a message on my boards I would have held it back and canvassed alternate opinion, then posted all discourse at the same time. You wouldn't have to hold up every letter, but one as "thought provoking" as the original surely deserves special merit. Hopefully this is an example of the "down to earth" approach that Dr Nehrlich holds so dear - as many facts and opinions as possible up front, which readers can toy with at their leisure. Remember what happened when a certain UK newspaper printed names of paedophiles? Some simply turned the page, others experienced a nasty taste in the mouth swiftly fixed by a slug of tea, and a few took up their cudgels and turned vigilante. Before the angry emails flood in, I'm not suggesting for a second that esteemed BMJ readers are about to go ape. Far from it. Here's the point. One polarised view in print, especially one as challenging as Igbokwe's, will either draw no response, or reaffirm strongly held views either pro or anti. Where's the CPD in that? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Arnold Seglenieks, General Surgeon Berri SA 5343
Send response to journal:
|
I believe that Poynton’s letter deserves comment. Its content and nature are characteristic of the way in which those who believe themselves to be holding a correct view or opinion (which may even be seen to be “mainstream”) claim to be prepared to honestly debate the issue at hand, but at the same time present anyone who holds an alternative view as being “misinformed”, “outdated”, “ignorant” and “bigoted”. This certainly amounts to prejudice, and fails to promote the open and honest discussion that is required, effectively driving away those who wish to contribute, by publishing emotive and personal attacks on their character. This is destructive enough in itself, but there is clear evidence of the effects of such a biased view in the content of Poynton’s letter, which claims that Igbokwe’s letter expresses something that will adversely affect his, or anyone else’s approach to patient care. I have followed this stream of discussion, and there is clearly nothing of this nature in his letter, whether one agrees or disagrees with the nature of his comments. This level of apparent prejudice is hardly justifiable in an open and intelligent forum. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Christopher M. Binns, General Practitioner 169 West Wycombe Road High Wycombe Bucks.
Send response to journal:
|
Whilst I would agree with some of Boynton`s views,her attack on general practitioners is unfounded.Igbokwe works as a histopathologist---I doubt we can extrapolate his views onto primary care and be labelled as being "woefully ignorant." I think the BMJ should have noticed this before publication.I wonder how many readers will have checked the occupation of Dr. Igbokwe over a month from the publication of his letter. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
William H James, Honorary Research Fellow The Galton Laboratory, Univ College London, Wolfson House, 4 Stephenson Way, London NW1 2HE
Send response to journal:
|
Rates of HIV infection continue to rise in many parts of the world. This imposes an increasing burden on the NHS and so, on all of us. To the extent that rates differ as between homosexual and heterosexual communities, there should be increasing interest in the scientific question of the aetiology of homosexual and, particularly, bisexual behaviour. So one may echo Boyntons1 dismay at any suggestion that paedophilia might be equated with homosexuality. However, it is possible, without prejudice, to wonder if there is an association between the two. A statistical link is suggested by the following data : 1. Among male paedophiles, about 25% are exclusively or primarily interested in boys2 , and 2. This is about ten times higher than the percentage of homosexuals among men whose sexual interests are directed to adults3 Accordingly, I have adduced evidence for the suggestions that there are causes common to male homosexuality and paedophilia, and that these may include sexual (or quasi-sexual) experience in childhood or adolescence4,5. It may be acknowledged that in dealing with these subjects, there are substantial difficulties in definition, and in eliciting reliable data. Nevertheless, the differential above seems so large as to imply some positive association. It remains to be seen whether the hypothesized common causal antecedents are as I have suggested. References 1. Boynton P. Publication of bigoted letter is worrying. Br Med J 2004;328:1261 2. Blanchard R, Barbaree HE, Bogaert AF, Dickey R, Klassen P, Kuban ME, Zucker KJ. Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archs Sex Behav 2000;29:463-478 3. Wellings K, Field J, Johnson A, Wadsworth J. Sexual Behaviour in Britain : The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. Penguin Books, London 1994 4. James WH. The cause(s) of the fraternal birth order effect in male homosexuality. J Biosoc Sci 2004;36:51-59 5. James WH. A further note on the causes of the fraternal birth order effect in male homosexuality. J Biosoc Sci 2004;36:61-62 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Edwin Lutyens, Retired psychiatrist, Belgium (Retired), B-8660
Send response to journal:
|
Gay self-righteousness is one of the sorry spectacles of the day. There are many sexual minorities, of which homosexuality and paedophilia are only two. Members of minorities did not choose their preferences, and there is no moral dimension to preferences, only to behaviour. So for members of one minority to posture as holier-than-thou in relation to another is sad and nonsensical. Edwin Lutyens Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Akheel A Syed, Specialist Registrar & Clinical Research Associate University of Newcastle NE2 4HH
Send response to journal:
|
Much has been said following Igbokwe's letter, but none better than this comment by Lutyens! Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Col B. Bashir, Trainee Clinical Psychologist University of Liverpool L69 3GB
Send response to journal:
|
I note that the rapid responses to Petra Boyntons letter did not speak up in support of Petra Boynton's position but generally criticised the manner in which her letter was written and the conclusions she jumped to. For the record I fully support her position. I would draw your attention to the places and positions from which you speak, which is evident from your accounts; whether consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally. When you speak of homosexuality and paedophilia in the same paragraph you draw on narratives of deviance and criminality. By talking about it's cause and consequences - we are not legitimising it, we are questioning its existence. Homosexuality is not a disease and nor is it criminal. I speak from that which has been decided by our legal and medical establishment, certainly in terms of policy, rather than simply an individual opinion. If you wanted a discussion about deviancy and non-consensual sex, of which Paedophilia is one such orientation, then I suggest you write about it in the same letter as you would Zoophilia or bestiality. Perhaps even amongst topics on other non-sexualised relationships in which power is abused between adult and child. By continually placing consensual gay sex (usually male as the rapid responses suggest) amongst narratives about non-consensual sex between adult and child; we are re-affirming the myth in peoples minds and in their attitudes that paedophiles are usually gay men. Is it not true that the majority of paedophilia or child sexual abuse, as it is also known, takes place within a family and marital context and is likely to be from a heterosexual male relative? I believe there to be some nave defensiveness in the arguments presented here. I would urge people to first consider homosexual behaviour and intention as a consensual adult desire; as an act of love and relationship; as well as consensual sex. If you take this position first I am sure the way you write, where you write, and the links you make to other topics in your letters will change. At least I hope so. Otherwise you are in your own way perpetuating the marginalisation of a significant group of people across the world, in every culture class and religion. Competing interests: None declared |
|||