Tuesday, October 25, 2005
In the news...
Of interest in the news today:
Abortion: I posted last week on the Victorian government's modest plan to require women seeking a late term abortion for "psychosocial reasons" to have a 48 hour cooling off period and counselling independent of that provided by the clinic that is providing this service. Given that a recent increase in the numbers of women seeking this service is largely among teenagers, who one might expect are the most in need of some independent counseling and time to think, it seemed to be a very sensible suggestion. Well, this is just all too much for Labor women, because it dares suggest that some women might not get want they want, regardless of the reasons they want it. Anyway, the Minister (a woman) is expected to drop the cooling off period, but still require the independent counselling.
It's better than doing nothing, but the militancy with which Labor women oppose any reform on an area that is a matter that most doctors find ethically challenging is what bothers me most.
Phillip Adams: in the Australia, has a go at Australians for not getting upset about the planned execution of Nguyen Tuong Van in Singapore for drug smuggling. It's all racism, he says. He draws comparison with Schapelle Corby. One big difference he fails to mention: Nguyen's lawyer said yesterday on Radio National that his client had never denied guilt and fully co-operated with police.
I don't think he should be executed either. The amount involved was relatively small, and he has apparently provided evidence that could be used to prosecute figures in Australia (if he is alive to give evidence.) In any event, drug smuggling is just not one of those offences that I would ever consider worthy of capital punishment.
But Adams' having a go at Australians for being racist by failing to take this case to heart is going to have the opposite effect from what he wants.
Gerard Henderson: in the SMH today has another good article on the supposed cynicism and alienation of the Australian electorate. (It's all a bit of a "beat up", basically.) Well worth reading.
Tony Parkinson (The Age) on the problem with Syria is good too.
The number of kid's deaths from driveway accidents now exceeds pool drownings, according to the Australian. That surprises me, and as I hate urban 4WD's anyway, my bias against them is further boosted. (Yes I know, not all of these deaths would be from 4WD.)
I would like to finish with something lighter, but haven't found anything yet...
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Racing the pigeons
Googling "racing pigeons Australia" in fact brings up 15,700 hits (if you limit it to Australian web sites - 153,000 if you don't!) This could make a guy feel paranoid. What else is going on around me in this country that I have never noticed?
Things get a little weird when you look at the first link on that google search (entitled, oddly enough, "Racing Pigeons Australia".) It explains that the first section:
"is for the dedicated pigeon fancier who is only interested in viewing close up photography of pigeons eyes."
Wow. I suspect that getting stuck next to a racing pigeon fancier at a singles dinner party might be some girl's idea of hell.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Shooting to kill
The Australian runs a not bad summary of the issue in its article here.
The proposed bill's section is s105.23:
"An AFP member must not, in the course of taking a person into
custody or detaining a person under a preventative detention order,
use more force, or subject the person to greater indignity, than is
necessary and reasonable:
(a) to take the person into custody; or
(b) to prevent the escape of the person after being taken into
custody.
(2) An AFP member must not, in the course of taking a person into
custody or detaining a person under a preventative detention order,
(a) do anything that is likely to cause the death of, or grievous
bodily harm to, the person unless the AFP member believes
on reasonable grounds that doing that thing is necessary to
protect life or to prevent serious injury to another person
(including the AFP member); or
(b) if the person is attempting to escape being taken into custody
by fleeing—do such a thing unless:
(i) the AFP member believes on reasonable grounds that
doing that thing is necessary to protect life or to prevent
serious injury to another person (including the AFP
member); and
(ii) the person has, if practicable, been called on to
surrender and the AFP member believes on reasonable
grounds that the person cannot be apprehended in any
other manner.
This section in the proposed bill simply copies the power that is already in the Commonwealth Crimes Act. Also, to take one example, Queensland has a similar legislative power which is worth reading in detail by way of comparison:
"(1) This section applies if a police officer reasonably suspects a person--
(a) has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offence punishable by life imprisonment; or(b) has committed an offence punishable by life imprisonment and is attempting to escape arrest or has escaped from arrest or custody
(2) This section also applies if--
(a) a police officer reasonably suspects a person is doing, or is about to do, something likely to cause grievous bodily harm to, or the death of, another person; and
(b) the police officer reasonably suspects he or she can not prevent the grievous bodily harm or death other than in the way authorised under this section.
(3) It is lawful for the police officer to use the force reasonably necessary--
(a) to prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of another offence punishable by life imprisonment; or
(b) to apprehend the person; or
(c) to prevent the escape of a person from arrest or custody; or
(d) to prevent the commission of an act mentioned in subsection (2).
(4) The force a police officer may use under this section includes force likely to cause grievous bodily harm to a person or the person's death.
(5) If the police officer reasonably believes it is necessary to use force likely to cause grievous bodily harm to a person or the person's death, the police officer must, if practicable, first call on the person to stop doing the act."
The difference is that the Queensland provision is talking about persons who are already suspected of having commited a serious offence (or are currently engaged in something that will harm others,) whereas the Commonwealth section is aimed at people who are the subject of preventative detention orders.
Now, such orders may only be granted in cases where:
(i) will engage in a terrorist act; or
(ii) possesses a thing that is connected with the preparation
for, or the engagement of a person in, a terrorist act; or
(iii) has done, or will do, an act in 1 preparation for, or
planning, a terrorist act; and
(b) making the order would substantially assist in preventing a
terrorist act occurring.
(3) A terrorist act referred to in subsection (2):
(a) must be one that is imminent; and
(b) must be one that is expected to occur, in any event, at some
time in the next 14 days."
Clearly, the proposed bill may be used to allow the police to nab people who may be seriously dangerous, so serious powers relating to arrest are needed. However, you would have to suspect that the very fact that a preventative detention order has been made will make the police more ready to assume that lethal force is necessary to "...protect life or to prevent serious injury to another person (including the AFP member) ". The Commonwealth section, although almost certainly intended to cover necessary steps if the danger is immediately present at the time of the arrest, does not spell that so clearly.
Frankly, I think the wording of the Queensland provision is better and clearer in that it's emphasis in section (2) is obviously more clearly on the "here and now" of the arrest: the person "... is doing, or is about to do" the thing that will cause death or gbh.
There was no nefarious intent in the Commonwealth drafters in putting the current Crimes Act provision in the Bill, and the Premiers have been guilty of grandstanding on this. But, it is still the case that the Commonwealth power is left a little ambiguous when you try to apply it to arresting someone for an possible future offence, not one that is already committed. The wording of the Commonwealth provision should therefore, in my view, be tightened.
But frankly, I doubt that it would matter much if the States just all keep their own laws on "shoot to kill" anyway. I am no expert, but I think that their provisions are not going to work dramatically differently to the AFP's. It just takes care and common sense (and good police training onrecognizingg quickly when the different levels of force are needed).
There, I have done it. Supported Labor Premiers. (Sort of.) Now must have a shower and come to my senses!
Other people's blogs
"I'm a woman in my fifties, lifelong Democrat mugged by reality on 9/11. Born in New York, living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon. My friends and family are becoming sick of what they see as my inexplicable conversion, so I've started this blog to give vent to my frustration. I have a background as a therapist, and my politics make me a pariah in my profession, too. Little did I know that I moved in such politically homogeneous circles."
Tim Blair should link to it. But then, he should link to me too!
Next, I sometimes click on a random blog name on the "blogs updated" list that scrolls continuously on the Blogger site. That is how I found this one, from a Malaysian guy who hates his boss and has a strange turn of phrase. From his first post:
"Work wise, currently I'm attached to an investment company. The work description and job scope sound very dynamic but most of the time I'll be swinging my two beloved balls."
??
The next post, about his cat, notes:
"I guess female cats are not interested in him since he has no balls, secondly he can't swing his balls when he's not doing anything like I enjoy doing during office hour hehe...(He was already castrate when I adopted him)."
What exactly is he doing in his spare time in the office??
Another post complains about how tired he is because of Ramadan (it's true, then, as I had a previous post about this.) He complains:
"Not only that, the eyes feel so heavy too. So heavy that you would not care even if there is a bare stinky butt beside your face."
Next, he is posting that his wife is pregnant and it is a girl. What a worry. Just remember, I read it so that you don't have to.
Finally for now, while not really a blog as such, Newsbusters seems a pretty good professionally run conservative site on "liberal media bias" in the States.
Really, really trivial news
See link above if you want to see a Japanese poodle crossing the road very safely on two legs.
"Passersby contacted police afterwards, saying the dog had given them renewed recognition of the importance of road safety.
Pluto walked on his hind legs into an office at Ise Police Station to receive the honor. Station head Etsujiro Kurachi addressed the canine saying, "Thank you, Pluto," and handed over the dog food prize."
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Songs you don't normally expect at a wedding
See link above for interesting story on female "circumcision" in West Africa. To quote:
"Female circumcision -- also known as female genital mutilation -- is widespread in West Africa, despite a smattering of national laws and campaigns to eradicate the practice. In Mali, for example, almost 92 percent of women of childbearing age have been circumcised, according to a recent government study.
But Mali is now spearheading a new regional initiative against female circumcision using an unusual medium: Griots like Gamara, who exert a powerful and indispensable role in traditional West African culture."
A Griot is a "member of the cast of traditional singers and storytellers" in that part of the world.
"Pitted against the anti-circumcision movement are powerful social and religious forces. Although the tradition of cutting off part or all of a girl's clitoris before marriage was practiced long before Islam arrived in Africa, many Muslim adherents describe it as a religious necessity.
Others, like Gamara, argue that female circumcision is hygienic, even though it can cause major medical problems if unclean instruments are used."
Hygienic?? What do they conceive the clitoris as doing to make a woman unhygienic?
""At the beginning it was very difficult to decide to sing against circumcision," recalled Kida, a nationally renowned singer and griot who often appears on Malian TV. "People said, 'Assitan, you shouldn't meddle with that. Because circumcision is part of our culture.'
"But I said no," Kida added. "Even doctors are telling people to stop."
Kida herself has been circumcised. But her three young daughters have not. She is currently recording a CD that includes songs promoting children's rights and speaking about the problems of female circumcision. But she says she approaches the subject gingerly when she sings at weddings or at other public occasions.
"I never sing about it in an aggressive way," Kida said, adding that she usually approaches the subject of female circumcision at the end of her act. "And often people will come up to me and say, 'This is good. What you have sung about circumcision is true.'"
Wedding receptions are a little different there...
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Dumb question
The BBC story above puts the two sides to the question of whether Saddam should be executed.
There is no great inconsistency, in my view, in being opposed to capital punishment as a possible consequence of ordinary domestic crime, but allowing that it should be available in the case of crimes against humanity. The argument for it in Saddams case is overwhelming, in terms of the on-going "hope" his life gives to domestic terrorists who are willing to take countless civilian lives to prove precisely nothing.
The Human Rights Watch guy cares more about procedure than anything else, and the idea that the death penalty is a "cruel and inhuman punishment."
"Now, should Saddam Hussein be found guilty, when it comes to his being executed the death penalty is a cruel and inhuman punishment that violates the right to life and the prohibition against torture. I know well how strongly many Iraqis feel about Saddam and others. But to impose the death penalty on these individuals will be a throwback to the ancien regime - it will suggest business as usual in terms of cruel and inhuman punishment."
To me, common sense dictates that such concerns, in the case of someone convicted of ordering the killing of hundreds or thousands of civilians, are outweighed by the gravity of the offence, no prospect of "rehabilitation" and the fact that, to the extent that other murderous leaders can be deterred, imprisonment for life with good chance to catch up on reading and see the wife and kids is rather pathetically inadequate.
As I said, it is also not just about Saddam; it is about stopping the continuing killing as far as possible as soon as possible.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Useful Hitchens article
See the link above to a good Hitchens article on the tribal groupings in Iraq, and how the Western media tends to misrepresent their situation. A crucial paragraph (the bit about the Kurds was news to me):
"To be a Sunni or a Shiite is to follow one or another Muslim obedience, but to be a Kurd is to be a member of a large non-Arab ethnicity as well as to be, in the vast majority of cases, a Sunni. Thus, by any measure of accuracy, the "Sunni" turnout in the weekend's referendum on the constitution was impressively large, very well-organized, and quite strongly in favor of a "yes" vote. Is that the way you remember it being reported? I thought not. Well, then, learn to think for yourself."
Those wacky Dutch
What I find curious is that when you do a Google news search for "Netherlands polygamy" it comes up with a miserly 20 reports on this (and many of these are conservative American sites, not major news ones.)
I would have thought this would attract more attention in the MSM, as the idea of "civil union" legislation has been pushed a lot in the last year or two. But surely the gay lobby would not want to press for it to cover 3 -somes? I recall Mark Steyn warning in a column that if you allow gay marriage, the next push (which had already been started by some group in the States) would be to legalise polygamy.
God, think of the fun the Courts would have in deciding property settlements or child custody cases with more than one partner!
More on Latham Diaries
"In his rage and revulsion, Latham has doubtless traduced the reputations of some decent and honourable people, both in the ALP and elsewhere. (What his hapless ex-staffers did to deserve their various '‘serves'’, for instance, is hard to fathom.) There doesn'’t seem to be any particular strategy to this: as Latham sees it, he'’s just speaking the truth as he finds it. There'’s a kind of compelling brutal honesty to this approach, but also a strange emotional autism."
The general argument in the article is that Latham is obviously emotionally and physically unwell, but his basic points about the party are valid. Sure, but everyone knew about the factional problems endemic in the party before the Diaries anyway.
Posts to make you grind your teeth
Cindy's latest words of wisdom:
"I have two points to make about the referendum vote in Iraq on Saturday. First of all, George told us in his headlong rush to disaster in Iraq that Saddam had WMD's and that Iraq was culpable for 9/11. George and his band of war monsters still despicably say 9/11 in every major speech in defense of the invasion and continued occupation. He never said "regime change" or spreading "freedom and democracy." If the constitution passes, what will be the next devious justification for the occupation?"
This can be criticised as being factually and morally in error in so many ways , I can't be bothered responding.
An earlier post is weirdly paranoid about using the military to help in the event of a dire outbreak of bird flu:
"The war machine and the people who serve it in our government are getting a little afraid themselves of not being able to keep the industrial military complex rolling in the bloody dough, so George and friends have come up with a new enemy whose atrocities also can't be contained to borders and that doesn't wear a national uniform: The Bird Flu. What kind of person who doesn't bow before the warmongers and war profiteers calls the military as his first plan of action when a health threat is supposedly brewing? Instead of calling out the National Guard (who by the way are still fighting, killing, and dying in Iraq), do you think his first call should have been to the CDC? Or to his Surgeon General, and not his military Generals? These people do not walk on this earth anywhere near reality or peace. Our new enemy of the state will be Birds who may be ill and we shall be very afraid every time we sneeze and pray that our government saves us from more imaginary threats. While we are praying, the war profiteers are laughing at us on our knees as they are counting their stacks of wicked and immorally gotten gains." (Emphasis mine)
Just how far will she have to go before she loses credibility even with the Huffington crowd?
By the way, I notice that Huffington Post is absolutely full of commentary on the Judith Miller story. For me, even with Professor Bunyip's useful commentary, it has become just too complicated to follow. It would appear that the whole matter seems to be fizzling out, and maybe that is why the Left is in a bit of a lather. (Of course, seeing I have lost track, I could be proved wrong.)
Arab freedom revolution continues (at snail's pace)
"A source in a private Saudi media company announced on Sunday that its company, in an agreement with Riyadh city secretariat, will display a children cinema retrospective during the three days of Eid al-Fitr to be the first cinema shown in the Kingdom, 20 years after banning such shows. The source said that the show will start on November 3 will be limited to women and children in the halls of one of the big hotels in the Saudi capital. The hall includes 1400 seats. Thirty year ago, the Saudi authorities used to permit the display of cinema films in private clubs but in the beginning of the 1980s prevented cinema shows in public places under the charge that they are religiously prohibited. On the other side, the authorities permit the use and selling of video films in public shops which sell tapes and CD ROM for most recent Arab and foreign films."
I am guessing that the dire risk of a unmarried man and woman touching hands in the darkness are behind the ban, but who knows.
It's pretty unbelievable, isn't it?
Never happy
It seems to me that his analysis is very unlikely to be original. To quote:
" This is a Clayton's constitution - a conflicted, contradictory unity bill for a country tearing itself apart, accepted in a vote dictated by the fault lines of Iraqi history.
Here are some of the elements of the constitution that mock notions of national unity and invite civil war."
And he goes on to talk about various aspects of the constitution that he thinks are likely to cause problems.
Now, I know that copies of the constitution are available, but I really doubt that McGough is making these judgments just on his own reading and analysis. His pronouncements are too dogmatic, too neat. For example:
"Laid out in its separate parts, this is a document that denies the very notion of Iraqi citizenship."
But if he is following some other commentator's or academic's line, he doesn' t acknowledge it.
I think he must be a fan of this site (Al Jazeera.com, which is not the same as the Al Jazeera TV network, nor Al Jazeera.net, which may or may not have something to do with the TV network. I wish these guys could come up with better product differentiation.) I had mentioned the .com website some time ago. It is rabidly anti-Bush, anti-Iraq constitution, and gives every conspiracy theory the light of day (although with comments allowed after articles, which usually does attract a lot of rebuttal.) Their take on the new constitution is here. The key paragraph:
"It seems that Bush'’s admin has finally found the solution: "Divide Iraq" and then pit the three mini states created against one another. It's not the first time something like this happened."
Al Jazeera.com is based in Dubai, apparently.
Anyway, time for some optimism please.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Lots of Goodies
The full paper by Helen Hughes on aboriginal problems being linked to their isolation from the economy generally is also to be found there. Frank Devine gave a bit of a backgrounder to how the paper came about recently in the Australian.
There's also a link to a decent article (look at the right hand column; I can't copy the link here for some reason) by Owen Harries on how wrong the predictions of "intellectuals" have historically been, and the possible reasons why. Hopefully, Mr Harries is himself wrong about the Iraq war, which he opposed.
Crime and punishment in Japan
The Japan Times link is to a story about the Japanese criminal investigation system.
"Japan's criminal justice system lacks a fundamental notion that is manifest in other parts of the democratized world: the presumption of innocence, according to human rights advocates.
Suspects are still forced to make false confessions during interrogations in which legal representation is banned, and custody can last up to 23 days before charges are filed, lawyers and people who claim to have or were determined to have been falsely accused told a recent public meeting in Tokyo held by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations.
Arrested suspects are often detained in a police "daiyo kangoku" substitute prison for up to 23 days before indictment, and release on bail is unlikely as long as they plead innocent or remain silent."
It's no wonder US military authorities are reluctant to hand over their members to this system.
If you go to jail, it's not much fun either. A brief ABC radio report last year noted:
"Life on the inside is incredibly strict, conditions are Spartan, and intricate rules dictate every aspect of prison life – how to sit at a table, how to fold your clothes, never sit on the futon. Some prisons even dictate how to lie in bed. Prisoners who roll onto their stomachs during the night can be punished.
(Sound of bell ringing)
In the jail workshops, inmates work diligently, not allowed to speak, look at the clock, look at each other, or look out the window. There are regular reports of physical abuse by guards. In 2001 and 2002, several prisoners were killed by their keepers at Nagoya jail.
One of them died when guards pushed a high-pressure fire hose into his rectum. The force of the water caused massive internal trauma. The prison tried to claim the injuries were self-inflicted."
It pays to behave yourself when in Japan.
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Saturday, October 15, 2005
The Holocaust revisited
It's a well made series, with a good balance between "talking head" interviews (both with survivors and some of the perpetrators) and dramatisations of various events.
Looking at the BBC website, it is clear that a lot of care went into the dramatisations. Some of them are precise re-enactments, filmed in the same location where the events took place. No wonder these scenes have such an authentic feel. (Actual locations featured a lot in Schindler's List too, if I recall.)
Still, in such documentaries, for emotional impact it is hard to beat first hand accounts delivered by the witnesses. This series does take more interest than most in the story from the other side. These interviews tend to be fairly short, however, and while most of the old men seem to regret their involvement now, they don't usually come across as being too haunted by it.
This week's episode was most upsetting when covering the (foreign national) Jewish children taken from occupied France. About 4,000 were separated from their families and deported; none of them survived. If you have children yourself, hearing such stories is particularly affecting.
When one aging Nazi soldier was asked about this, about how he could believe at the time that children deserved this fate (even if you believed that adult Jews were the source of all evil), he said (as best as I can recall) that they knew the children themselves were not responsible, but it was the Jewish blood in them that they feared and believed they had to eradicate.
This has been said by several of old soldiers; they genuinely believed at the time that Jews were so bad they deserved their fate.
I don't know a lot about this topic in particular - about how so many Germans could be so strongly convinced that the Jews deserved death. (OK, it is debatable how many German citizens without direct involvement in camps knew that the Jews were being exterminated. But in the BBC show it is often the men who were personally doing or witnessing the killing who are saying this.) I know the generalities about Nazi propaganda against the Jews. What I have trouble comprehending is how successful it was. And it wasn't as if Jews were more capable of being considered "non humans" because they were out of sight and not observable.
This is why it is worth revisiting this topic every few years. It is almost incomprehensible, yet it occurred.
There was a book out in the last few years that did deal with the issue of how responsible the German people has a whole should be seen. Guess I should just track it down and read it.
Finally, while looking around the Web at a few Holocaust sites before I posted, I found that there are actual photos of Amon Goeth, the commandant of the camp in Schindler's List, with his rifle on his balcony. (If you recall from the movie, shooting inmates from his balcony was one of his hobbies.) I didn't think the movie was a likely exaggeration, but I was still surprised to find photos of him which appear to confirm this habit.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Noteworthy opinion in The Age
First, a pleasing one from their resident right winger Tony Parkinson. (Must be lonely for him if has to come to the Fairfax to write his columns.)
It's all about French hypocriscy on the Iraq situation. Funny how the oil-for-food scandal doesn't seem to get sustained attention in the MSM. (To its credit, Lateline did give it a fair outing one night a couple of months ago.)
Second, a more typical Lefty rant about how awful it is for the Bracks government to take even the slightest step towards discouraging late term abortions. Let's start with the title: "Late term decision won't ease the pain of abortion". Of course late term abortion is only about the pain of the mother. Not the fact that in many cases it is the killing of a viable fetus that, if any mother had given birth to prematurely, all medical help would have been given to keep it alive.
The assumption is this:
"Any woman wanting a termination after 20 weeks (the definition of a late-term) would almost certainly have considered the decision carefully, if not agonised over it."
But barely five lines later it's said that "teenagers account for the highest proportion of late terminations for psychosocial reasons". I wonder how many teenagers seek late term abortion because they could no longer hide the pregnancy from family, and are being pushed into it for that reason. Wouldn't giving them more time (only 48 hours cooling off period after all, which is what the Brack's government has introduced) possibly help sort out this sort of pressure that might be placed on teenagers?
Next:
"It is worth noting that almost half the women who have the procedure in Victoria are from other states. They come here because late-term abortions for psychosocial reasons are provided in a clinic in Melbourne. It is believed to be the only such clinic in the country. Clearly there is demand for this procedure."
Well clearly if there is demand, it must be warranted. But I find the fact that there is a demand for, say, heroin fairly irrelevant to the decision as to how it should be considered legally and morally.
The writer claims that:
"A psychosocial reason for an abortion is given by a doctor when there are fears that the mother's mental health could be damaged if she continues with the pregnancy. This is a genuine concern in the case of some women. It's not an excuse to have a late-term abortion because a woman just couldn't be bothered to do it in the first trimester."
Excuse my skepticism, but it seems to me that if there is one clinic in Melbourne that is attracting interstate clients for this procedure, there is a fair chance that they might be popular because of the low risk that they are going to turn you away. How hard is it to say that you feel suicidal at the prospect of having to have the baby? How much time do the doctors spend clarifying this?
It is obvious that many in the medical profession find late term abortion (at the very least) distasteful, and are happy to run a million miles from it, especially if the reason does not involve any abnormality of the child. And when even Eva Cox and other feminists indicate a willingness to look at the issue, you know there is something serious going on. Sushi Das (odd name) just sees it as a matter of demand and supply, and women must get what they want because they "agonised" over it.
Third, Paul Keating gets to have a bleat about proposed IR reform, and how everything about the economy for the last ten years is actually all his doing, and why didn't the Australian public love me, etc etc.
He's acting like a scorned lover who just never knows when to let it go. Doesn't he realise that such stuff just re-confirms people's views as to why they ousted him? If there is one thing he should learn from Howard it is modesty.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
I got rhythm...
Anyway, a slightly amusing paper says that couples who use such "fertility awareness" methods do have the same amount of sex, it's just that they have it more often on "safe" days. This makes for a "selling point". The claim as to the effectiveness of the methods seems pretty big:
"In earlier field trials Institute researchers determined the efficacy of the Standard Days Method and of the TwoDay Method to be to be greater than 95 percent and 96 percent respectively when used correctly, making them more effective than the condom or diaphragm. The Standard Days Method is for women with cycles between 26 and 32 days long. To use the method effectively, women can use a visual tool called CycleBeads® to monitor their cycle days and identify the days when pregnancy is most likely (days 8 through 19)." (Emphasis mine.)
Cyclebeads? Cute name. You can see what they are here. Just a way of counting days.
I am pretty skeptical about this, just because it sounds too good to be true. However, the claim is as follows:
"According to the 1998 edition of Contraceptive Technology, 85% of women who use no method of family planning will get pregnant in one year. The percent of women who will become pregnant during the first year of perfect use of a "user-controlled" method is as follows:
- Cervical cap, 9 - 26%
- Spermicides, 6%
- Diaphragm, 6%
- Female condom, 5%
- Male condom, 3%
- Birth control pills, 0.1 - 0.5%
- Standard Days Method, 5% (2002 Georgetown study)"
Is it fair of me to ask what the "non perfect use" rate of success of each method is? Or does that just make meaningful comparisons too difficult?
Comments doctors?