"A deep-seated attitudinal problem" (?)

Well hello there www. As you probably know, I was away for a few days swotting up for my Professional Conduct exam; my last exam. As the law of the sod would go, several things occurred during that exam to make me feel less confident about the outcome:

• I got writer's cramp about 5 minutes in


• It was an hour and a half exam and although visiting the ladies just before it started, I became desperate to go about 30 minutes from the end so thus lost 10 minutes


• I had 2 minutes to do 14 marks' worth of multiple choice questions


• I ran out of time and bullet-pointed 2 whole questions (just about)


• There were two questions which I could not identify the issues which were being tested UNTIL THE END (see the previous point)

So after feeling relatively confident prior to the exam as I had prepared, read over everything, practised questions, walked around my house talking to MYSELF about 'Regulated activities' and s.327 FSMA and Scope Rule compliance...it all went (for lack of a better word) "teets up".

Pah.

So last night, after watching another exhilarating episode of Eastenders (I was not being sarcastic...much) I caught an episode of Panorama, entitled 'A Very Dangerous Doctor' about paediatrician David Southall. I had not been aware of this story prior to this but it really caught my attention. Evidently, Southall had used secret filming of his patients and managed to uncover a ridiculous number of cases of child abuse. Now of course in learning about Family Law, you become familiar with the concept that the safety/ best interests of the child are of paramount importance etc (Apologies if my wording is a bit off; I haven't looked through my family law things for about a year...)

So why were so many people up in arms about the findings of Southall's research? Perhaps it's because several people have been accused of child abuse due to the findings of it? But in my head, all I can think about is the fact that children are possibly being abused and that this research/ surveillance may save a few children from this. Sadly for their parents though, it may mean false accusations of abuse.

Where is the balance?

Now, in reading a follow up article (because CBC likes to do her research) Southall has been described as having 'a deep-seated attitudinal problem' by a disciplinary panel. It seems a shame that the focus is now on his personality than the issue in hand; the safety of the children. However, I am not looking at this through 'rose tinted' glasses and ignoring the fact the he may have had an agenda which had nothing to do with the children and more to do with a 'power trip'.

As the judge ruling that the decision to strike him off was justified said,

"He was speculating on non-medical matters in an offensive manner entirely inconsistent with the status of an independent expert."

But what about this Münchausen's syndrome? The article describes it as, "... a condition which means parents deliberately induce or fabricate illnesses in their children to get attention for themselves."

Are Southall's accusations justified in some way? Obviously every case is different but isn't it better to be safe than sorry?

Interesting stuff. So many questions...so few right answers.

*sigh* I love the law

CBC

xx

(p.s I really need to discover once and for all the issue regarding copyright and images in this blog. Although there are links to all the photos and otherwise I have obtained permission from folks for certain cartoons, I am still a little concerned. All in good time.)