Protecting children ...
I have lost count of how many squillions have been spent on computer systems but the latest brilliant "new" idea which is supposed to protect children by enabling various departments/services to work together (again!) has one huge
stumbling block. Identity. We do not have identity cards in this country and (apparently) the majority are opposed to any moves to introduce such a system. How, then, are we supposed to keep track of anybody - including children who may be in danger?
stumbling block. Identity. We do not have identity cards in this country and (apparently) the majority are opposed to any moves to introduce such a system. How, then, are we supposed to keep track of anybody - including children who may be in danger?
0
Comments
You must have missed this news report. It's supposed to stop children being abused in their own homes. Two children a week die in their own homes as a result of neglect/abuse by their own families/carers. The only thing which will ever stop this is (a) eye-witnesses reporting the offences to the police and (b) immediate police response. Neither seems to happen.
Because you can't just turn up at hospital with an injured child and invent an identity
Lots of news happening all the time. Perhaps a link would help, got one?
If these kids are dying in their own home then how will everyone having identify cards help? I would have thought ID chips embedded under the skin would be better, especially if the kids turn up years later when the new owners dig up the patio. Hell, why not just install CCTV in every room and give Cameron the title Big Brother.
Many children are repeatedly taken to hospitals and some have non-accidental injuries and parents vary which hospital they visit. By keeping a central record of every child receiving treatment in A & E those children who visit A & E frequently will be noticed. A separate specific record of those children will be kept in every A & E department.
So not a national identity system so much as a watch list for children who may be in danger? Sounds perfectly reasonable.
http://www.channel4.com/news/child-abuse-it-system-to-be-set-up-by-department-of-health
I agree.:)
Thanks for the link.
As people have already pointed out it doesn't stop adults from taking children for treatment under an alias. I saw no mention of biometrics, for example, as a means of identifying the child. Surely that would be possible?
Knowledge that such a system was in place would also make these abusers less likely to seek medical attention for their victims too, I expect. Which would increase the suffering of the child rather than help them.
It has all the makings of a system that is put in place with good intentions, but which ends up causing more problems than it solves.
if you have battered your child almost to death what do you do next? Wait for it to die then call the undertaker? Any decent undertaker would call the police. A body cannot be buried without a death certificate and only a doctor can sign death certificates. Any doctor in those circumstances would refuse to sign the certificate.
Most parents and their partners would go to a hospital and try to get away with it. Like Baby P's mother/partner.
If you child suddenly disappears then someone will notice, neighbours, teachers, extended family etc.
Doing something is better than doing nothing.
The injuries that Baby P and Victoria Climbié were admitted to hospital with the first two or three times were not life-threatening.
this is a smokes screen
It has been 40 years since Maria Colwell first hit the headlines and child abuse in the home was highlighted. (Link: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/articles/11/01/2007/102713/what-have-we-learned-child-death-scandals-since-1944.htm) Still children suffer and die horribly. Regrettably, I do not believe the latest initiative will be any more successful in ending their suffering than the other measures put in place over 40 years, and I have a sneaking suspicion that one of the reasons society fails in protecting children is that removing them from their homes presents the obvious problem of where to place them. Perhaps it is time for governments to address this issue as a matter of urgency.
But do they? I would have thought that presenting an untraceable child, one with no apparent record of birth, would be an immediate warning sign.
But they were part of a pattern of successive visits which is why making A&E records compulsory is so important.
To us, perhaps, but to NHS staff who are already down-trodden by the system, probably under-staffed and responsible for lord knows how many other emergencies ...
(Ask any police officer about the difficulties of identifying people - especially juveniles - taken into custody ... )
Are the medical staff going to spend time discussing the child's true identity and medical history or are they going to treat the child? And if the injuries do not require hospitalisation (or even if they did, for that matter) how would you stop the parent/carer from leaving with the child? It's a minefield.
And because the staff would be on alert when the new regulations come into force they could make a note of the description of the child and supposed parents to enter in the new system.
You'd want the medical history to make sure you don't kill the child instead of curing it.
Yes, Im sure cctv could play a part too
So what's the problem, then?