Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    It seems I will either be changing my goal to pharmacy or making a "semi-committed" application to medicine, keeping my views on the matter of child abuse/neglect very strictly to myself. What if I was asked in interview about a possible situation ? I hate telling lies though... that's another moral/ethical discussion.

    I have not received a single supportive response, so it seems if you're not prepared to go along with the filling in of CPR1s without proof, supporting social workers in their legalised theft, and acting as a political pawn you don't make a good doctor. If this is so all I can do is continue my support for the anti-forced adoption campaign, or risk disregarding the regulations and trying to change things from the inside. The second is probably not something I am cut out for.

    And ApplePi, I have been in contact with experienced pharmacists who have said co-operation with social services and family courts is not any part of the job. There has NEVER been a case of a pharmacist being struck off or disciplined by the RSPGB (now GPhC) over a child protection issue. I could be the first- but a pig could also fly.
    can you source justification for your claim that social services make a hash of child relocation, and that they don't save more lives than they destory?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Subcutaneous)
    Oh, what do you do?
    I volunteer in the EDCU ward in the opthalmology section in east block/ENT. Mostly cataract operations and such, so mostly elderly patients. I've seen a few student nurses pop up though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    For the vast majority of things I could simply say I didn't think it was suspicious- and as I have a trusting personality (except with known wrongdoers) this would not be a lie. Pharmacists will most certainly not be expected to assess "probability" of abuse or worse still, "future abuse"- this would be funny if it wasn't so serious. So-called experts being approached by senior social workers/police to change reports so they will win the case, if the care quotas have not been reached within the council. Psychiatrists getting eight year olds to play with toys on hidden CCTV, generally including anatomically correct dolls aplenty, and the moment they see anything that resembles sex or violence they write a report in favour of the LA and bang! your kids are gone until at least 16 on the "balance of probabilities" in a court with no jury and no access to the public. As I said, not funny. Doctors asking children funny questions and interpreting their answers in a puerile sub-Freudian way, and their hearsay being taken on board by the judge, who is often a member of their social circle. Quite apart from conspiracy theories and exotic unprovable ideas, doesn't it stand to reason that a judge would prefer to side with their friend, a CAMHS psychiatrist or paediatric hospital consultant who goes to dinner parties and the pub with them, over a working-class mother with shabby clothes and a methadone prescription?

    If you go to websites such as stop injustice now, forced-adoption, FASSIT, and blogs by parents who have witnessed the destructive power of a cosy group of educated middle-class men and women nodding their heads in agreement with each other on how the "probabilities of sexual abuse" justify having their children stolen, you would understand why I have reservations. Any moral person would do if they actually looked into it rather than accepting what one side says as gospel.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beska)
    I volunteer in the EDCU ward in the opthalmology section in east block/ENT. Mostly cataract operations and such, so mostly elderly patients. I've seen a few student nurses pop up though.
    Ohhhhhhhhhh you're a volunteer! Yeah i know where you mean.

    It explains why you got training, thought you were a doctor or atleast care asisstant (who i think do or atleast should get training). I think it comes as an induction. You'd have to do very hard to avoid a student nurse, theres 2000 of us!!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Subcutaneous)
    Its not, unfortunately, uncommon. I'm training in adult nursing, meaning all placements (except a 4week stint in a school) and have seen far more many cases than I'd have liked too. You're right though as a student there is the responsibility there, however despite not being fully qualified your main responsibility is ensuring you learn to recognise and how to act upon suspicions and the agencies involved.

    OP- turning this on its head, would you report symptoms and signs of sexual abuse on say an adult (eg aged 30 hypothetically) who has learning difficulties with mum as main carer? Or an elderly man who's 'fallen' a lot down the stairs according to carers yet lives in a bungalow..? Despite it being simply concerns?
    I would not make a CPR1 referral unless there was EVIDENCE (eg patient brought in by ambulance and the child's schizophrenic mother admitted hurting them, or gonorrhoea in a 10 year old girl.) There are many more things I would question the patient and parents about- but not report unless their explanations were clearly inconsistent with medical fact. I do not say that all reporting is snitching, only that where you are going on a hunch with little to back it up.

    I would report a vulnerable adults issue. The procedures in such cases are much more just, less of the "integrated working" BS, (common abduction framework in practice) and a higher proportion of people who actually want to help the disabled and elderly; children's social care is from what I have discovered based much more on the will to power.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Subcutaneous)
    Ohhhhhhhhhh you're a volunteer! Yeah i know where you mean.

    It explains why you got training, thought you were a doctor or atleast care asisstant (who i think do or atleast should get training). I think it comes as an induction. You'd have to do very hard to avoid a student nurse, theres 2000 of us!!
    I would be salaried if they would give me a job!!

    Yeh there are student nurses all over the place. :p:


    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    For the vast majority of things I could simply say I didn't think it was suspicious- and as I have a trusting personality (except with known wrongdoers) this would not be a lie. Pharmacists will most certainly not be expected to assess "probability" of abuse or worse still, "future abuse"- this would be funny if it wasn't so serious. So-called experts being approached by senior social workers/police to change reports so they will win the case, if the care quotas have not been reached within the council. Psychiatrists getting eight year olds to play with toys on hidden CCTV, generally including anatomically correct dolls aplenty, and the moment they see anything that resembles sex or violence they write a report in favour of the LA and bang! your kids are gone until at least 16 on the "balance of probabilities" in a court with no jury and no access to the public. As I said, not funny. Doctors asking children funny questions and interpreting their answers in a puerile sub-Freudian way, and their hearsay being taken on board by the judge, who is often a member of their social circle. Quite apart from conspiracy theories and exotic unprovable ideas, doesn't it stand to reason that a judge would prefer to side with their friend, a CAMHS psychiatrist or paediatric hospital consultant who goes to dinner parties and the pub with them, over a working-class mother with shabby clothes and a methadone prescription?

    If you go to websites such as stop injustice now, forced-adoption, FASSIT, and blogs by parents who have witnessed the destructive power of a cosy group of educated middle-class men and women nodding their heads in agreement with each other on how the "probabilities of sexual abuse" justify having their children stolen, you would understand why I have reservations. Any moral person would do if they actually looked into it rather than accepting what one side says as gospel.
    You obviously have a bias view here and would obviously not be fit to practice. Rules are rules and guidance is guidance - at the end of the day it is there for a reason and will protect more than it damages. I work with children who are physically, sexually and emotionally abused and it is nowhere near as easy as you think it is to rip families apart, especially just based on CAMHS assessment etc. like you suggest. You obviously have an axe to grind but I support CAMHS and social services 100%.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I went to CAMHS when I was 14-15 for anxiety caused by bullying at school (my intelligence and my unwillingness to behave in a cruel/offensive manner singled me out as a target) but was also going to a private psychiatrist outside the country and then speaking to her electronically when I could not travel, and discussed some sensitive matters only with her. Reason? To avoid the risk of "information sharing". Someone should go to the European Court to challenge them. Supposedly permanent, centuries-old British laws such as the right of a husband to have sexual possession of his wife, and the ban on imprisoned convicts voting, have been overturned by a single Human Rights Act decision. New-fangled government systems have even less chance of standing. Contactpoint is already gone and good riddance. The DNA database idiocy has been rejected.
    It is very easy to snatch children. There are hundreds of people who could testify with me. If you count those prohibited from speaking by court orders, the figure increases exponentially. Type "Child Snatching By The State" into a browser.
    I have also had additional sources of information which I cannot discuss so openly. If refusal to "protect" makes me unfit to practice then I just hope that I am as much of a gain to pharmacy as I will be a loss to medicine.

    I have also met several primary teaching students who are not submitting to the safeguarding policies in their placements and have no intention of doing so as a qualified teacher. All of them have broadly the same sentiment, that they distrust the system for investigating abuse and a fortiori they are there to teach, not to protect. They will fortunately be able to get away with this as many teachers will never even have a suspicion of abuse in their careers. GPs and paediatricians, however, would be expected to report as cases will always crop up where abuse is a possibility- so if I made no referrals in five years, this could alone be used against me, which is my fear.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    so if I made no referrals in five years, this could alone be used against me, which is my fear.
    No. Just by virtue of not making reports doesn't mean you are doing something wrong.

    Let's use our earlier example of a toddler. He constantly reported with bruising with excuses that seemed feasible. Maybe once, twice you could understand why the bruises were there. Completely reasonable. Assume the toddler reported relatively recently with bruises of increasing severity, for example. You, as you said, would turn a blind eye. The toddler then reports with internal bleeding and dies, and it is determined to die due to abuse. The files would be examined, and you would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you didn't know what was happening after you saw the toddler many many times. You would probably determined to be unfit to practice because either 1) a reasonable person could consider that the toddler was at risk from harm, but you couldn't work it out or 2) you knew the toddler was at risk from harm, but you didn't report it.

    "One cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in."
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I could just give a rational explanation, or refer the toddler onto someone else more senior without saying I suspected abuse- it would not be my responsibility what that person chose to do- if I was a GP who was not the lead in the group practice or an A&E doctor for example. But for most medical specialties you have adults and pediatrics quite strictly segregated. So if I went into a specialty which deals with adults, I would be able to get over this issue and practice medicine without compromising my values by avoiding the suspected-abuse situation. There are two difficulties with this I can see:

    1)Getting through uni placements- but it would really be Sod's law if a terrible incident happened and I was said to be accountable.
    2) Adult services generally take 16+ years but the CP guidance goes up to 18- there are very different issues with 16/17 year olds and it is not the sort of clear cut matter that would lead to a FTP hearing. Most age limits can be bent a little provided your work is otherwise irreproachable; if there were a catalogue of charges, failing to safeguard a 17 year old female from sexual exploitation could be added on by way of afterthought, but in the normal scheme of things no-one gets dismissed for not strictly enforcing protectionist doctrine with patients in this age group.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    I could just give a rational explanation, or refer the toddler onto someone else more senior without saying I suspected abuse- it would not be my responsibility what that person chose to do- if I was a GP who was not the lead in the group practice or an A&E doctor for example. But for most medical specialties you have adults and pediatrics quite strictly segregated. So if I went into a specialty which deals with adults, I would be able to get over this issue and practice medicine without compromising my values by avoiding the suspected-abuse situation. There are two difficulties with this I can see:

    1)Getting through uni placements- but it would really be Sod's law if a terrible incident happened and I was said to be accountable.
    2) Adult services generally take 16+ years but the CP guidance goes up to 18- there are very different issues with 16/17 year olds and it is not the sort of clear cut matter that would lead to a FTP hearing. Most age limits can be bent a little provided your work is otherwise irreproachable; if there were a catalogue of charges, failing to safeguard a 17 year old female from sexual exploitation could be added on by way ofafterthought, but in the normal scheme of things no-one gets dismissed for notstrictly enforcing protectionist doctrine with patients in this age group.
    You have a warped view of your accountability as a healthcare professional.

    You are probably a troll. However for someone so young to have such a great insight into social serviced, child protection and negligence. I suggest 2 things 1) seek counselling and help, there are clearly some major issues kicking off here and 2) don't go into medicine.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    How dare you call me a troll? I have made no stupid or offensive comments, used no foul language, not treated anybody with disrespect, and posted 15+ times with rational explanations. I wish to use my exceptional academic gifts for the benefit of others, which is one of the main reasons for going into medicine; I have complete respect for nurses but could it be that you are jealous of a person younger than you who is likely to get into a better university course?

    I have enough experience of being called a snob, a swot or both; this will not deter me, due to my strong beliefs and the simple fact that most of the people who despise intelligence have shallower lives and end up in less interesting jobs than those who cultivate it. This is hardly elitism; it's a fact of life.

    Not wanting to be a snitch is not a psychological defect that requires counselling. Are you really so brainwashed that you believe that it is?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    I wish to use my exceptional academic gifts for the benefit of others, which is one of the main reasons for going into medicine;

    and the simple fact that most of the people who despise intelligence have shallower lives and end up in less interesting jobs than those who cultivate it.
    Jesus ****ing christ, are you serious?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Do pharmacy. There's already too many busy body doctors/med students that use big words but say nothing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    First off, yes I am serious so you ought to show some respect and stop blaspheming. This was designed as a clean forum for reasonable and polite discussion between students.
    Secondly, not all of us who want to get into medical school do it for the salary and the trusted position in society. I wouldn't mind them- but I actually want to help out those in need and does it not stand to reason that those in the top 1 or 2 academic percentiles can best serve in the higher professions? This doesn't make them spiritually or humanly "superior" to the people who left school at 14 and are now still working at the age of 70 in a corner shop. Everyone should play the part in society they are most capable of. Are you so cynical that you deny altruism is real?

    Thirdly, while they are necessary for our modern world, manual labour and what are officially referred to as routine work such as bartending or packing boxes in a factory are not as interesting to most people as the things that require extensive study and/or training. Shallowness is the result of a lack of critical understanding, cultural awareness and discernment; now what else could be working in the minds of the people who truanted and got Fs when they bothered to turn up for exams, while calling a small number of people with ambition snobs?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    Supposedly permanent, centuries-old British laws such as the right of a husband to have sexual possession of his wife, and the ban on imprisoned convicts voting, have been overturned by a single Human Rights Act decision.
    I know this isn't perfectly relevant to this discussion but I was browsing through, reading issues and this just stood out to me from a mile away as particularly... what's a nice way of putting it... being particularly misogynistic. Yes, that's a nice word to use in this scenario.

    For god's sake, pease don't go into healthcare.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I am not a misogynist. I agree with the decision in that case- the couple were estranged and no longer intimate, and the man had no right to use force upon the woman. I included it simply to make the point that European courts are prepared to strike down assumptions which have been part of UK law for a very long time.

    Your avatar displays the EU flag- so that doesn't suggest you have a problem with their court decisions
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    I am not a misogynist. I agree with the decision in that case- the couple were estranged and no longer intimate, and the man had no right to use force upon the woman. I included it simply to make the point that European courts are prepared to strike down assumptions which have been part of UK law for a very long time.

    Your avatar displays the EU flag- so that doesn't suggest you have a problem with their court decisions
    so you're saying not only would you not report suspected child abuse but you also only disagree with marital rape in certain specified circumstances.

    to be honest you shouldn't even be doing the box stacking work you turn your nose up at, you need some psychological help or to stop trolling because dealing with other people in any capacity is not going to be your forte.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Turning blind eye to child abuse, condoning rape and then slating nursing as being inferior to medicine. All from somebody who has only just finished GCSE's.

    Troll has put a lot of effort in, but is still a troll.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beska)
    Turning blind eye to child abuse, condoning rape and then slating nursing as being inferior to medicine. All from somebody who has only just finished GCSE's.

    Troll has put a lot of effort in, but is still a troll.
    I was just about to say! He's certainly put the work in. I'd go so far as to say he's the M&S of trolls!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The responses I have been getting are so out of touch, and so different from what the people who actually know me think, that I have seriously considered reporting your posts.

    WHERE DID I CONDONE RAPE? This sort of serious allegation cannot stand up. I was just saying what the law was for a long time. This is neither misogyny nor condoning it- it is stating a fact. If a couple were still together, then that may be a mitigating factor- not everyone will agree with me, but as bad as it would be the rape of a stranger seems far more depraved. The line between coercion and rape is harder to draw within a relationship than if a man pulls a woman into his car and drives her to woods, or bursts into a public toilet. I just think the sentencing for marital rape should reflect the lower end of the rape guideline scale (4-6 years) rather than the top end of 10-life and the few cases that have gone to court are in agreement with that.

    In the case of R v R (both parties anonymous) which led to the legal change, the relationship was over and IIRC the man broke in, so 7-9 years (mid tariff) would be provided for by the guidelines. I think this is quite fair!

    I would not be supporting justice for families and then believing some medieval misinterpretation of the Bible that a man has the right to do whatever to a woman once they marry. That's just too much of an inconsistency.

    I do not think anyone is inferior or superior, only that people have different abilities and should do what is best for them and the people around them. I only mentioned nursing being academically inferior because of Subcutaneous making offensive personal attacks and it appears no-one on TSR wants me to do medicine, although my college tutors say I am capable of it, and I was expecting at least some supportive responses.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.