The eugenicists of early 20th century Britain were especially concerned about the relative over breeding among the poor, feckless & intellectually impaired. More ‘respectable’ campaigners for contraception & birth control recognised that many working class women would be only too glad to be free of the burden of excessive numbers of children. Respectable scientists & demographers supported their cause, with journals publishing alarming forecasts of the average IQ of the population of greater London by 1950 if the relative fertility rates persisted.
I was under the impression that it is almost a statutory duty for doctors to offer contraceptive advice to new mothers these days, but the Human Right to a family life no doubt stops them going too far with urging this on any woman.
Hopes are being pinned on earlier intervention in problem families, with Family Nurse Partnerships or Family Intervention Projects (where a key worker 'grips' the family) being piloted.
Probably women workers for the most part. But do we not need just as many male workers teaching men about their paternal responsibilities?
And where will we find the numbers we need? There seem to be about 25 to 30,000 children on the Child Protection Register , plus all those others who are not quite causing that level of concern.
Another social worker brought on to the radio to discuss the Martin Narey proposal for more & earlier adoptions remarked that every worker in child protection had at least one case involving a man who just fathered umpteen children with umpteen different women. Sometimes it is hard not to have just the teeniest glimmer of sympathy with eugenic ideas about sterilisation for some.
But then, aren’t a large number of mates & a large number of children a sign of the evolutionary success of an individual & his genes?
Links
