"deprivation of liberty" cases not reported

  • 4 Replies
  • 1599 Views

seegee

  • *
  • Charter Member and Volunteer
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5166
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22026308
Don't suppose it's much of a surprise, families have often been told it'd be too upsetting or unsettling to take someone resident in a care home out for a few hours.   :-(

devine63

  • *
  • Guest
From the description in the article. that deprivation of liberty was part of a punishment regime being inflicted on the elderly person because she was difficult to manage - that's appalling.

In some ways it is similar to the stuff they did in hospitals in the 1950s - parents' visits were restricted because visiting and then leaving again upset the children and the nurses resented having to cope with crying children.  Then we learned more about child development and attachment and realised why the hospital "no visiting" policy was so damaging.
regards, Deb

starsmurf

  • *
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 936
I think in most cases the restriction on visiting children in hospital wasn't because nurses resented the children crying - nurses had little or no say in such things - but because children were treated as somehow different to adult human beings.  When psychologists and doctors saw that children were upset after a parent's visit, they thought that the visits must be unnecessarily distressing to children and that it would be better if visiting was very restricted or even didn't take place.  Such ideas were frequently held by matrons, probably because that's the information they were given.

Remember at this time surgeons were operating on babies with no anaesthetic because they thought they couldn't feel pain.  That idea persisted for years, I was even told by my RE teacher that when we watched a video on a Jewish circumcision of an eight-day old baby that we shouldn't be upset when the baby cried.  He said that babies didn't have properly developed nerves to feel pain and that it probably didn't hurt.  His main argument for that idea was that, if we watched, "the baby undergoing a Christian baptism had the same reaction"!

My parents still become distressed at a memory from my time as a young child in Yorkhill Children's Hospital in 1983.  In the same ward as me there was a little boy of two, who had leukaemia.  He'd been in hosptial for months and was therefore almost certainly terminally ill (my dad's a doctor and that's what he thought).  Never in all that time had his parents or any other family member visited him.  Not even once.  He used to come up to other patients' visitors and try to climb in their laps for a cuddle.  My mum was especially upset by it and when my siblings came to visit me, she and my dad would go and visit that little boy.  I think other parents sometimes did the same.  I'm not a parent but I can't understand how any parent could fail to visit their child who was undergoing such an awful, painful and frightening situation.
Look carefully at the avatar, note what's barely visible in the gap in the rings.  I've highlighted it for you.

devine63

  • *
  • Guest
Hi

it could be that baby had been taken from his parents and was "in care" so the parents could not visit...   or it could be that the parents were utterly terrified by what was happening to him and could not cope ... or he could have been an orphan ....  or his parents might both have been drunks or junkies ...

I agree it is distressing, but there are many many possible situations that baby could have been in.   Some children in such circs will do as he did and seek affection where they can, others totally withdraw....

regards, Deb

starsmurf

  • *
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 936
Hi Deb,

Your ideas are all good ones but that poor wee boy wasn't an orphan or in care.  My dad accidentally overheard - he was in a neighbouring room talking to my consultant - a junior doctor talking to a social worker about visiting the parents at home to get a consent form signed.  The doctor mentioned that they were nearby, so it wasn't a problem with transport or cost.  From what my dad overheardheard, the parents weren't alcoholics or drug addicts, they just didn't want to visit.  My mum and dad had been convinced it must be addiction or physical/mental illness until he heard that conversation.

My dad didn't tell anyone except my mum about that conversation until twenty years later (and he only told her that their ideas about why the parents didn't visit were wrong).  My mum remembers him coming back after he overheard it and having to leave the ward for a moment as he was so angry about it.  It must have felt awful to watch that wee boy and I can understand the anger my dad still feels about how that child must have suffered.

My dad has seen the kind of scenarios you suggested, so he wasn't jumping to conclusions.  I think the unable-to-cope idea had been dismissed by the doctor and social worker.  The only other reason that I can think of why loving parents wouldn't visit is if a grandparent still had the idea that visiting a child in hospital only upset them.  I know that some children are just unwanted,  from earliest childhood, a good friend was told that his parents didn't want him, didn't love him, wished his mother had had an abortion, etc.  Throughout his childhood, he had the constant threat of being adopted hanging over him.  The only reason it didn't go ahead was because his grandparents threatened to cut his parents out of their will if it did.  These people weren't simply uncaring parents, my friend has an older brother who they adore.  They're a nice, middle class family, the kind you'd think were good people.  It just shows that we don't know what goes on behind closed doors.

Sorry, this isn't very cheerful and is off-topic for the thread...  :-(
Look carefully at the avatar, note what's barely visible in the gap in the rings.  I've highlighted it for you.