We use cookies to improve our service and to tailor our content and advertising to you.More infoYou can manage your cookie settings via your browser at any time. To learn more about how we use cookies, please see our cookies policy.
I recognise that Drs. Speight and Wynne, wrote an unbalanced article
(Is the Children Act failing severely abused and neglected children) to
encourage discussion but I expect more respect for evidence in Archives of
Disease in Childhood.
I could trade insults based on factual inaccuracies (the Children Act
was enacted in 1989 not 1990 and implemented in 1991), selective and
inaccurate references and many unsuppor...
I recognise that Drs. Speight and Wynne, wrote an unbalanced article
(Is the Children Act failing severely abused and neglected children) to
encourage discussion but I expect more respect for evidence in Archives of
Disease in Childhood.
I could trade insults based on factual inaccuracies (the Children Act
was enacted in 1989 not 1990 and implemented in 1991), selective and
inaccurate references and many unsupported statements that largely ignore
counter-indicators. But insults would obscure the important point.
The Children Act is framework legislation. It does not dictate
practice but sets a framework sufficiently flexible to adapt to new ideas.
If evidence shows that removing more children from their relatives will
result in greater child protection, the Act will permit such a change in
emphasis.
The child protection field lacks reliable evidence about what works,
for whom, when and why. Into this vacuum floods completely inconsistent
ideology and rhetoric. Practitioners are criticised one week for doing
too little, the next for being over reactive.
Would a greater willingness to prosecute parents, intervene in family
life and remove children lead to better outcomes for victims of
maltreatment? I do not know. I could produce a learned, properly
referenced article giving the pros and cons. Can the state parent better
than an errant parent? The answer is sometimes 'yes', sometimes 'no'.
Evidence from the United States, probably the most interventionist of
western developed countries and almost certainly the least effective in
protecting children urges caution.
We need less rhetoric and more evidence. The struggle is to find out
what works in the protection of children and to encourage the consistent
application and re-evaluation of that technology. Arguing whether to
remove more or fewer children is pointless. Thinking about what we do when
we are responsible for supporting these children is the key. The Children
Act encourages reflection and will allow implementation of results,
whether they be for or against the views of Drs Speight and Wynne.
Michael Little, Ph.D.
Co-director Dartington Social Research Unit,
Research Fellow, Chapin Hall Center for Children at
The University of Chicago
I read with interest the article by Chong et al, in which they
studied the variations in blood pressure, heart rate, shin and abdominal
wall skin temperature in 44 term infants during sleep, in 4 different
positions, prone and supine, horizontal and with a 600 head up tilt
respectively. They concluded that the variations observed in the 4
different positions, due to vasomotor tone, may have a role in su...
I read with interest the article by Chong et al, in which they
studied the variations in blood pressure, heart rate, shin and abdominal
wall skin temperature in 44 term infants during sleep, in 4 different
positions, prone and supine, horizontal and with a 600 head up tilt
respectively. They concluded that the variations observed in the 4
different positions, due to vasomotor tone, may have a role in sudden
infant death syndrome.(1) However, I feel that the statistical analysis
used is inappropriate and may not necessarily support their findings.
The authors used the Student t test to compare, in each of the 4 body
positions, the mean values of each measured parameter in the 44 infants.
If the measured values do not follow a Normal distribution (this is not
mentioned in the study), the use of the t test would be invalid.
Furthermore, the authors measured the unpaired t test when they
compared the mean values in all infants, in each body position
respectively. However, the samples were paired (not independent), with 4
body positions for each infant. The parameters of each infant should
therefore be compared in the 4 different body positions (each infant being
his own control), instead of comparing the mean values of all infants in
each body position. The unpaired t test they used cannot distinguish
variations for each subject from variations due to differences between
groups.
It is however still possible that the reported results are correct,
but to prove it, the authors need to use either the paired t test for
comparing means, if the measured values follow a Normal distribution, or
the paired Wilcoxon test if they do not.
References
1. Chong A, Murphy N, Matthews T. Effect of prone sleeping on
circulatory control in infants. Arch Dis Child 2000:82;253-256.
Hassib Narchi
Paediatric Department
Sandwell General Hospital
Lyndon, West Bromwich
West Midlands B 71 4HJ
E-mail: hassibnarchi@hotmail.com
I recognise that Drs. Speight and Wynne, wrote an unbalanced article (Is the Children Act failing severely abused and neglected children) to encourage discussion but I expect more respect for evidence in Archives of Disease in Childhood.
I could trade insults based on factual inaccuracies (the Children Act was enacted in 1989 not 1990 and implemented in 1991), selective and inaccurate references and many unsuppor...
Editor,
I read with interest the article by Chong et al, in which they studied the variations in blood pressure, heart rate, shin and abdominal wall skin temperature in 44 term infants during sleep, in 4 different positions, prone and supine, horizontal and with a 600 head up tilt respectively. They concluded that the variations observed in the 4 different positions, due to vasomotor tone, may have a role in su...
Pages