From Mrs H. Davies, MRPharmS
SIR,-May I comment on the opinions put forward in the letters from Miss Taylor and Mr Morris (PJ, July 1, p14). It seems that correspondence following on from the "Onlooker" article (PJ, May 13, p710) regarding sustainability of the human race has moved away from the original considerations and has led to criticism of two groups of people: those who have more than two children and those who, often through no fault of their own, are unfortunate enough to have to rely on state benefits.
First, I take issue with Miss Taylor's comments regarding family size. If families are limited to two children, in a generation or two the population will be "top heavy" with elderly people. Some people will have one or no children and population numbers will fall. This reduced population of younger people will bear the burden of paying the taxes to maintain health and welfare services for this disproportionately high number of elderly. They will also have to provide the staffing for these services. At present those of us who choose to have more than two children can do so with a clear conscience, knowing that we are "balanced out" by those who have fewer than two.
Regarding the increase in housing referred to by Miss Taylor, in this day and age, with many families breaking up, many young people choosing to live away from home, and elderly people staying in their own homes rather than being cared for in the homes of their children, the average number of people per dwelling is considerably reduced in comparison with previous generations. This explains why we need more dwellings; it is not merely to do with population increase.
Factors such as these, together with "car culture", are placing stress on the environment, not the relatively modest increase in population over the generations.
Second, regarding those who live on state benefits, I should like to say that during the "career break" I took while my three children were small, I was involved in the running of the playgroup on the estate where I live. Many of the parents I was in close contact with were supported by state benefits. Most impressed me with their capability in bringing up their children - often single-handedly and on limited means. They were doing a job as good as, or better than, many in more affluent circumstances. There are, on our estate, those who neglect their children, yes, but good and bad attitudes are seen throughout society. Consider the children from families where both parents work, who are sent to school or nursery when they are clearly not well, but parents cannot easily leave their work commitments to stay home with their children.
One more point Mr Morris makes concerns parents of obviously sick children who are unwilling to take them to see the general practitioner. This is something I have never come across. In this area we are fortunate in that we have a rational distribution of GP surgeries, and patients do not normally have to sit too long in the waiting room before being seen. I speculate here: if circumstances are such that a trip to take a child to a GP involves a journey of a mile or two on foot or public transport, followed by the unenviable task of keeping two or three small children under control for possibly a long wait in the waiting room (and maybe followed by a wait in the pharmacy), I can understand parents sometimes being reluctant.
Hilary Davies
Nottingham