Dear Colleagues,
Like many I find this exchange on SIDs very insightful.
I was wondering could there be a new condition however called MEOSSS
'multiple e-mails on same subject syndrome', which leads to one author
sending four messages in quick succession rather than condensing them into
one ;-)
Regards
Vernon
ps. This is a joke - delete it rather than flame me.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Whittington
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 27/01/2004 00:41
Subject: Re: SIDs/MSBP
At 11:43 26/01/04 +0000, Paul Spicker wrote (in part):
>Proof beyond doubt is not however the test for child care law. The
>interests of the child are paramount, and the test is whether the child
>is at risk. A child who is failing to thrive or develop is
>unquestionably at risk, and that is what prompts investigation. The
>idea that children should only be removed from parents on proof of
guilt
>implies a return to the rules of the 1940s and 50s, rules which we
moved
>away from because they signally failed to protect children.
>Unfortunately, many inquiries have been handed to criminal lawyers, who
>persist in seeing the issue as one of proof beyond doubt - an example
is
>the Clyde inquiry on Orkney. The decision to take a child into care is
>supposed to be based on the balance of risk. Unexplained deaths and
>MSBP are some of many circumstances in which children may be considered
>to be at risk.
It obviously is difficult to find an acceptable 'happy medium'
here. No-one can deny that the interests of a child must be paramount -
but those interests obviously relate to many other things in addition to
the risk of being harmed by parents; in particular, there are many
aspects
of being removed from parents which are contrary to the interests of the
the child - which interests, as you say, are paramount.
I can see that demanding proof of risk of parental harm 'beyond
reasonable
doubt' (whatever probability that is meant to represent!) would probably
leave an unacceptable number of children at risk from their parents
(c.f.
the 40s/50s situation you refer to). However, it could also easily be
argued that it is unacceptable to damage (by unnecessarily removing them
from their parents) the ('paramount') interests of as many children as
are
'saved' - which would presumably be what would happen if a 'balance of
probabilities' (i.e 50% probability) test is applied.
Goodness knows where the 'happy medium' lies - but my personal opinion
would be that it should probably be considerably above the p=0.5 point,
if
the overall ('paramount') interests of children are to be best served.
Kind Regards
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225
Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK [log in to unmask]
----------------------------------------------------------------
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
--
The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by
charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may
be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated
in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such
person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone
and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this
message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise
immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email
for messages of this kind.
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|