Has child protection become a form of madness? The answer is a simple
'Yes' and 'No'. YES, as Gregoire and Hornby submit, we need to focus on
the underlying causes that disadvantage children and in the process may
place children at the risk of abuse, and; NO, as Spinelli and Howard
suggest, abuse of children is a widespread phenomenon to which society and
professionals have become increasingly aware and every effort should
continue to be made to identify and protect such children.
Perhaps surprisingly, none of the authors mention the concept of
'safeguarding', a term that embraces both the need to protect those in
need of protection, as well as the need to intervene early in the lives of
many children who are vulnerable for one reason or another. For too long
children suffering abuse have been seen as a discrete and static group in
need of special treatment, whereas in fact they are part of the body whole
of children, with over five times as many children classified as 'children
in need', and one in three of all children being considered 'vulnerable' -
and children can move between any one of these groups at any moment in
time. Approaches to deal with this problem need to consider how to respond
to the needs of all these children.
Both sets of authors are right to an extent, therefore. Protecting
children remains an important and worthwhile activity, but so does the
need to address the underlying factors that make our children some of the
most disadvantaged in the developed world. Arguing that one activity is
preferable to the other is an unhelpful debate - the two are part of the
same problem, with similar solutions. As I trot out at every training
session I deliver; 'The better we safeguard the many, the better we
protect the few.'
Rapid Response:
Has child protection become a form of madness?
Has child protection become a form of madness? The answer is a simple
'Yes' and 'No'. YES, as Gregoire and Hornby submit, we need to focus on
the underlying causes that disadvantage children and in the process may
place children at the risk of abuse, and; NO, as Spinelli and Howard
suggest, abuse of children is a widespread phenomenon to which society and
professionals have become increasingly aware and every effort should
continue to be made to identify and protect such children.
Perhaps surprisingly, none of the authors mention the concept of
'safeguarding', a term that embraces both the need to protect those in
need of protection, as well as the need to intervene early in the lives of
many children who are vulnerable for one reason or another. For too long
children suffering abuse have been seen as a discrete and static group in
need of special treatment, whereas in fact they are part of the body whole
of children, with over five times as many children classified as 'children
in need', and one in three of all children being considered 'vulnerable' -
and children can move between any one of these groups at any moment in
time. Approaches to deal with this problem need to consider how to respond
to the needs of all these children.
Both sets of authors are right to an extent, therefore. Protecting
children remains an important and worthwhile activity, but so does the
need to address the underlying factors that make our children some of the
most disadvantaged in the developed world. Arguing that one activity is
preferable to the other is an unhelpful debate - the two are part of the
same problem, with similar solutions. As I trot out at every training
session I deliver; 'The better we safeguard the many, the better we
protect the few.'
Competing interests: No competing interests