And another one...

People who know me well will be surprised that to date there has been no mention of the whole 'Baby P' issue on these pages.

Well that's going to change now, but before I commence my rant, I'd just like to point out that things about me aren't always as transparent as they might appear. It's true that part of the reason I haven't commented on the case was because most of it was kicking off during the few months I didn't blog at the start of this year and thus my rants, such as they were, were verbal, and directed at those around me on a daily basis, rather than blogged. However, it would be more relevant to say that I didn't comment publically largely because I find the whole thing just too upsetting to think about very much. Coming from a very large, very Welsh, family (the Welsh attitude to children and family is pretty close to veneration for the uninitiated) mentally I shy away from considering the sickness of mind which would inflict the sort of pain on a child which Baby P endured. I am not exaggerating when I say to think about the issue very much would lead to quite unpleasant nightmares on my part, and I'm enough of a coward to attempt to avoid that if I can.

However, today on reading the BBC news website (surprise surprise), I discover that attention has now turned to the NHS professionals who had dealings with the child; they have received criticism for failing to pick up on Peter's injuries earlier. The BBC helpfully listed the occasions on which the child had contact with the NHS:
- Six recorded visits to hospital, two of which were to an A&E unit
- A GP saw Peter 14 times, the last of which was a week before his death.
- One visit to a specialist health service.
- Five visits made to Peter at home by health visitors
- Two recorded visits to walk-in centres
- Other contacts include mental health workers and parenting counselling service

On the face of it, it's pretty shocking, isn't it? The GP and another paediatrician have now apparently been suspended on the strength of this case (see below for my reaction to that). However, just think about it for a minute... here we have SIX different areas of expertise between which the unfortunate child was shuffled. The report itself admits there wasn't a coherent level of communication between any of them so reading between the lines, it seems each was effectively working in a vacuum, not knowing whether anybody else had noticed anything strange about Peter's injuries. And I think this is the crucial point...

These days nobody has the guts to stand up publically and say there are some parents out there who are just not fit to be parents. No, in these PC times, we have to consider those parents' 'human rights' etc etc and as a result, rather than looking the problem in the face and seeing it for what it is, we have shied away from it and created a whole raft of different 'organisations' and experts to whom to pass the buck. A&E departments, unless in cases where it is utterly impossible to ignore the nature of injuries, are far more likely to let the patients go once they've been treated and make a discreet phone call to social services/the patient's GP than they are to call anybody WHILST THE PATIENT IS IN THE HOSPITAL because they are just SCARED. Scared of the physical violence which could so be easily directed towards them once the suspected perpetrators realise what has happened. Scared they'll be seen as 'interfering', 'judgemental' or 'prejudiced' and denounced as such by the lentil-knitting PC crew who have infiltrated virtually every public institution. Scared of the potential legal action which could be directed against them and their hospital/health authority by the suspected perpetrators who, by and large, are pretty savvy as regards sniffing out the possibility of compensation and aware they have been handed the upper hand in such situations by the aforementioned lentil-knitting mob. It takes a very brave health professional these days to put their neck on the block and actually kick off about injuries they see which they find suspicious. Coupled with the fact most NHS emergency services are run off their feet most of their working day, I'm not at all surprised they didn't appear to have said very much on the occasions Peter was under their care.

After an (unsurprisingly) pretty firm, complaint from me following a particularly blatant piece of stupidity on the part of our local health visitor (a Barbie-like creature not even I can find the words to express my contempt for) I was thankfully spared much contact with health visitor services after Mini got to the toddling stage. You can imagine my thoughts on their general efficiency however... I have no doubt that some of them are genuinely excellent at their job and do no end of good. However, I am also equally sure that the vast majority are absolutely useless when it comes to doing anything more than uttering vapid statements along the lines of 'there, there, have some antidepressants and join a playgroup'. It's rather sad we have to have them at all, and I can't help but think all the authorities actually envisaged them doing when they were created was filling the vacuum left when modern society lost contact with the notion of 'extended family'. All in all, therefore, I am completely unsurprised nothing resulted from Baby P having contact with health visitors...

Looking at the rest of the list of organisations with whom Baby P had contact, brings forth many of the same thoughts. We just can't expect health professionals to voluntarily kick off about potentially abused individuals when we have simultaneously allowed a culture to develop where they are likely to cop a lot of politically-correct flak for doing so. There are, however, two exceptions to this; firstly I note mental health services were involved. Did it not occur to anybody that if the parents are perceived as needing this sort of treatment it might be a good idea to play safe vis a vis the children concerned? Oh, silly me, of course not - to do so would infringe the human rights of the mentally disturbed. Secondly, I cannot excuse the GP (whom I note has been suspended); he had more contact with the family than anybody else, he was the best placed to form an adequate assessment of the danger posed by the parents to the children, and he was the first to see many of the child's injuries. I haven't actually read any comments stemming directly from this person, but if, as I suspect, he felt hamstrung by the considerations I have outlined above, I don't think in this case he deserves any sympathy. 14 visits to him and six to A&E are way, way too many to ignore unless the child had a chronic health problem and I haven't seen anybody saying that this was thought to be the case. He should be ashamed of himself and should lose his job.

None of this is going to bring Peter back, poor little soul. Nor in my wildest dreams do I imagine it's going to mean we are going to get an injection of common sense into the set up and a move towards telling the PC-mob where they can stuff their rights. If you talk privately to most health professionals, the police, or even social services, most of them will admit THEY think there are some people out there who just aren't fit to be parents, to use the phrase I employed earlier. But they can't actually DO anyting about it because they'll be hung out to dry for letting their middle class prejudices affect their work. WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH MIDDLE-CLASS PREJUDICE? I am not suggesting for one minute there aren't abusive middle-class parents but statistically they are much smaller in number than those in 'problem families'. Middle class kids might be subjected to mental pressure as regards to doing their homework or get rickets from a too vigorous adoption of whatever trendy diet is in vogue at the time, but by and large they do not visit the doctor's surgery 14 times with injuries including a broken back. Why CAN'T children who are living in appalling conditions (and who the professionals know are statistically unlikely to lead productive, fulfilled later lives because of this poor start) be taken out of these conditions and placed with middle-class adoptive parents? (Goodness knows there are enough childless couples, or ones who just want more children around to love). Yes, there undoubtedly would be cases, where for whatever reason, the authorities got it wrong and children would be moved unjustly, but I would argue these are likely to be far smaller in number, assuming we had people with some common sense at the helm of the relevant authorities, than we that of children currently suffering.

In considering the rights of the abusive parents who gave birth to these unfortunate kids, we are forgetting the rights of those children themselves. And surely it is the children who are the most important thing - or am I missing something here?