News

I am all for unconventional or even "politically incorrect" views, but they should be well argued and backed up by evidence. Patricia Morgan's piece on gay and lesbian parenting (Viewpoint, 4 April) was neither.

It is true that research on gay and lesbian parenting has methodological limitations, but Morgan does not appear to recognise that given the tiny numbers of such parents (at least until recently), the type of "random, properly controlled" research that she would like to see has been virtually impossible.

In the absence of this, qualitative research, small-scale studies and unrepresentative samples need to be undertaken, while recognising their limitations. Morgan appears to believe that the failure to carry out larger-scale research studies is some sort of conspiracy, rather than a genuine difficulty in researching this area.

However, it is in her concluding paragraphs that Morgan's argument becomes positively offensive. First, she states that there are differences in "parenting outcomes", with more children of gay and lesbian parents "becoming homosexual themselves". I do not know the research upon which this is based, but would have to question whether this is in fact a legitimate "outcome". The question is whether these children are happy, fulfilled people able to participate fully in society and sustain happy intimate relationships. Does it matter whether they are gay or straight? If, as seems to be the case, her real argument is that "producing" gay or lesbian children is a poor "outcome", she should make her value position clear. If she does not believe that, then why does she even mention it?

Second, Morgan uses her arguments to conclude that adoption law should not be changed to allow same sex or unmarried couples to adopt children. Leaving aside the strange introduction of unmarried couples in the final sentence of an article that has not mentioned them up to that point, she has presented no research or arguments to support this position.

If her own argument that we should try to base policy on evidence is to be taken seriously, she should at least try to provide some evidence that these groups are not fit to adopt. Of course, there is no such evidence, because the truth is that there are no groups - married or unmarried, lone parent or couple, gay or straight - who always make good parents or who are always unfit to be parents.

The ability of people to provide the love and discipline that children need to flourish is not a function of their sexual orientation, marital status or any other arbitrary factor. It is a function of the sort of person they are, and in particular of their ability to sustain nurturing and loving relationships. To suggest that this is something only married, straight people are capable of is inaccurate and offensive.

Donald Forrester
Research fellow
Brunel University

…..but predictable

If we relied on "solid" research to dictate solely how public policy is based, then there would be very few people left to parent (Viewpoint, 4 April). Research shows that many people, belonging to all types of minorities and majorities, struggle to parent because of the injustices and inequalities of society, and through lack of community and social support. These aren't grounds for denying such people the right to be parents.

It doesn't require much reading between the lines to see that Patricia Morgan seems to view homosexual people as inferior and, horror of horrors, that gay people may be more likely to produce more homosexual people (evidence please).

With links to the Christian Institute, which campaigns for keeping section 28, this homophobia is predictable, but still disappointing.

It is such homophobia, under the banner of distorted Christian values or other disguises, that is damaging to us all: parents and young people, gay, bisexual or straight. This bigotry, combined with the need to see being white, married, straight and Christian as superior to anything else, actually contributes to parenting difficulties in today's society.

Eamonn Kirk
Manchester

Don't take sides

In yet another editorial you are scathing about the NHS (Editorial comment, 4 April). There are many strengths and weaknesses in social care services and the NHS. Many of us who are trying to integrate services harness those strengths and learn from our weaknesses. Services are trying to constructively engage in providing meaningful and accessible services to our clients. Many of us are moving past the point where cheap pot-shots are taken at other services in order to make ourselves feel better about what we do or do not do.

Tony Fahy
Manager
Mid and North Devon Learning Disability Services

GPs and child protection

I am a GP who works on the boundaries of four London Boroughs. Child protection case conferences seem to occur when I do my busiest morning surgery (Monday). Many are held at social services head offices (three are a one-hour round trip on the tube, with no local parking) or a distant hospital. This is inconvenient for local families and professionals. One local borough takes child protection referrals on its "one stop shop" phone line - sensible perhaps for concerned neighbours but I am uncomfortable expressing vague misgivings or serious allegations to a generic call centre operator who also does parking and pest control.

Our four child protection handbooks are the size of telephone directories with no summary. They are written in a style of English I was never taught.

I did once attend a case conference (on my afternoon off before a weekend on call). It was excellent and I learned a lot. Sensitively facilitated, non-threatening and perhaps even therapeutic for the family involved.

Case conferences should be held near a child's home and GP surgery. More use should be made of phones and teleconferencing. If a distant meeting is vital then reimburse the cost to the GP practice of an agency locum - £150 - if they can get one.

Stephen Nickless
London