Negative Thinking !

Last week a child was discovered dumped in a storm water drain at Quakers Hill.  This week the body of a newborn was found buried in the sand on Maroubra beach - with the umbilical cord still attached.  It seems obvious that two desperate mothers faced some sort of unrelenting pressure to dispose of what they considered a threat to their relationships because of an unwanted pregnancy - and chose the option of abandonment.

This immediately resulted in suggestions that we need a "safety hatch "located in a convenient location - a fire station or a hospital seems popular - where an unwanted baby can be abandoned with the sure knowledge that a time delay alarm will bring it to the attention of professional carers - and the child will survive.    This idea has been implemented in a number of other countries and the location of such hatches is included in public safety information.

In this state, that idea has been flatly rejected.  A statement from the department of Family and Community Services claims "There is no evidence that safe havens work "!   New South Wales Health continues in that vein, stating that it  "Has no policy to provide safety hatches and there were no plans for such a concept "!

If we have never had a safety hatch for the disposal of unwanted babies,  how can we possibly claim that they do not work ?

If we offer a survival option to desperate mothers, there is at least a chance that it may save several lives a year - and putting one in place would cost a mere handful of dollars.  The evidence is there for all to see.   Two desperate mothers made a conscious decision to abandon their child in this past few days - and one lived by sheer chance and the other child died.  The safety hatch option was not available to either of those mothers when they made their fateful decisions.

We go to a lot of trouble to try and prevent suicides.    We value human life and trained counsellors will try and talk an intended suicide through the travails afflicting them.  Despite this, a lot of people take their own lives, but we do not immediately suggest abandoning these services.  Instead, there are calls for their expansion and wider publicity to try and get those with depression to use this service.  It seems strange that the first knee jerk reaction to a baby safety hatch proposal - is total rejection by the bureaucracy !

What is the factor the number crunchers require to give safety hatches the tick of approval ?  If they saved just one life a year, would that justify their existence ?   Some overseas countries have had this concept for many years and their occasional use is the justification for keeping them open - because the cost is negligible.   They are placed where permanent carers are always on duty - and at least they provide an option to what is otherwise a life or death decision.

Perhaps rejection by the bureaucracy will see this idea taken up by some charitable organization and we will see a public appeal for funds to bring it into being.  The biggest outlay would involve getting sufficient publicity to bring it to public attention - if that same bureaucracy declined to list it amongst other public services open to the public.

Unfortunately, if this safety hatch idea survives bureaucratic inertia it will probably only become available in major cities, and yet often the stresses of morality and perceived custom are greater in rural areas, and certainly the birth of a child is much harder to keep from becoming public knowledge in a rural setting.  Perhaps the provision of a safety hatch in such a location would be of even greater value.

It is disappointing that such a positive idea has been given the thumbs down - without even the courtesy of a public discussion to gauge community opinion !