While browsing in the sprawling second hand book emporium that is Goulds Book Arcade this weekend I came across a 40-year old copy of Life magazine from 1967, which had a special feature on the new contraceptive pill.
The headline was “Is this the most disastrous thing that ever happened to Australia?” - although the article actually proved to be an objective and factual account of the discovery and development of hormonal contraception. It posed some interesting questions – what effect would the pill have on abortion rates? And what were the long term effects on breast cancer and clotting risks?
The article was interspersed with comments from “opinion leaders”, who provide an interesting insight into the morality and beliefs of the time. By unlinking sex from reproduction some clinicians believed that oral contraception would promote immoral behaviour and therefore should only be used by married women.
“We have enough promiscuity as it is without encouraging it by prescribing the pill for every single girl who asks for it,” said Professor Harvey Mckay, head of obstetrics and gynaecology at the University of New South Wales. Retired obstetrician Lady Phyllis Cilento said that by reducing the birth rate, the pill threaten the survival of Australia as a nation. “Women are making themselves infertile and maternity hospitals are closing,” she warned. Others, such as Professor Derek Llewellyn-Jones decried the notion that the morals of young women were only held in check by theitr fear of pregnancy.
Interestingly, support for the new method of birth control came from many religious leaders. The late Rev Ted Noffs, founder of the Wayside chapel, said that he noticed kids in the sixties had a common sense approach to sexuality and morality – and there was less overt sexual activity than the previous generation.
And the Brotherhood of St Laurence criticized what it described as the “out of date , ostrich-like approach to family planning” and the deeply held fears of increased promiscuity.
It’s tempting to see the 1960s attitudes as archaic and quaint – but are we really that much more enlightened about family planning in the 21st century? We now have lower dose oral contraceptives, extended cycle contraception, and devices such as Implanon and Nuvaring. But there is still no male contraceptive and only one doctor in Australia is permitted to use mifeprostone (RU486). Forty years on, we still have a way to go.
Comments
Who put that typo in there? It wasn't Professor Harvey Mckay, it was Professor Harvey McKay Carey.
I think he was by and large a bit more level-headed than the statement attributed to Lady Phyllis Cilento, and I know at least one single girl who asked for it and got it - albeit it was nearly a decade later, she was not seeking contraception as such, and was a medical student at the time, but I think I detected a twinkle in his eye whenever he spoke to us. We attended his lecture series at St. George with particular diligence, so we knew him well and he knew us pretty well too.
He was a lovely fellow and what can I say, a deeply devoted Christian? In the event, a virtual explosion of immoral behaviour did seem to follow, though this may have more to do with a political event in 1970 or 71. I think he was much more practical than this report might suggest. Maternity hospitals did close, but there are many reasons for that.
