reliably crazed

Here's another bait and switch from the Mail:

Parents will be denied the right to know if their child is having under-age sex under controversial guidelines for doctors unveiled yesterday.

Routinely denied? No, only in very specific circumstances:

The General Medical Council said last night that this would apply where doctors believed an under-age patient might harm themselves or run away from home if the information were shared with their family.

So, confidentiality will only apply when there is a greater burden to protect the welfare of the child, shock horror.

I suppose the nicest thing I can say about the inevitable response is that some people are reliably crazed:

Stephen Green of Christian Voice described the guidance as "wicked". He said: "The idea of using contraception to stop the spread of disease is a dead duck. It will lead to more abortions, more sexual diseases and more infertility."

I'd like to pretend that any part of that makes sense, but it's just two assertions which have been glued together with frothing spittle to declare "using contraception will lead to more abortions." Again, to be positive, it's a unique theory, presumably rehashing the old saw that contraception doesn't work so you'd better get used to having children every time you have sex.

Someone who appears to know nothing at all about sexual health or contraception is probably not the best source for comment on, ooh well, sexual health and contraception, no?