And the point I was trying to make is they have re-invented the wheel. You don't do complexity, do you Pebble?
Originally Posted by Pebble
That is not true according to the links you yourself provided. I was not quoting the bits I agree with. I was quoting the bits which show that hygiene in hospitals is important, as has been known for more than 100 years: and the bits which showed that other factors such as staff shortages and overcrowding are also important; as I said and as you did not. And we do not need research to know this because it is already known. By the average 10 year old actually. it is no wonder I am not persuaded by your approach, Pebble. First you did not support your assertion with any evidence at all: then the evidence you do post does not support what you say. It supports what I say: that you can put in a package of measures, without evidence if you already know the answer.
I have been reading back over this thread. I notice you don't actually answer any questions. It annoys me, so I am going to ask some again
1. How do you suggest a social worker should determine which child is at risk or is being abused?
2. What do you think should be done with a referral such as that made by the doctor in my example?
3. Which independent observer do you think should judge whether statutory measures are required if not the court?
4.. Are you indeed such a selfless person that the threat of losing your job would make precisely no impact on your decision making?
5. Do you really believe that the police got convictions solely on the basis of confessions and intuition before recent innovations in techonology?
6. Do you think that the over-representation of black people in stop and search figures is a good thing? And if not, why not?
7. Do you or do you not accept that the diagnosis of ADHD and the prescription of ritalin should only be done by a child psychiatrist or a paediatrician with expertise in ADHD, as NICE says?
8. Can you consider the possibility that NICE is a monumental waste of money? That in fact it is not science based, but rather a marketing and cost control body ?
9. do you understand that in the question I posed it is not a question of whether poverty or drug misuse is the confounder, only?
In any given family there may be poverty, drug misuse of one or both parents, single parenthood, alcohol misuse by another family member. domestic violence. sibling abuse. sexual abuse, alcohol abuse, social isolation, poor housing, bullying, learning difficulties which may be situational or innate, poor hygiene, criminality, and on and on and on. Your immediate idea of investigating two issues is silly, Pebble. Folk are just more complicated than that. Even if you can sort out all of those things you will still find that some children are abused and some are not: some are resilient and some are not.
Can you see why I do not see you as very scientific? You opened with blind prejudice and a great deal of ignorance and so far as I can see you have spent the rest of the time defending you profession. I have done the same but you attacked social work on no information whatsoever: I at least attack your profession from some basic experience. Far from being able to make progress in the way you suggest I honestly believe you would take us further and further from reality. Some things just are not science