The husband of a depressed mother who killed her three young disabled children has criticised medical professionals for the "constant pressure" placed on the family to "submit the children to operations and other interventions".And I wonder if that’s because they genuinely thought these interventions would help, or because they wanted to try out their skills? All sixty of them.
Yes, you heard that right – sixty!
During the trial, the court heard from prosecutor Zoe Johnson QC that Clarence and her husband "believed that the only appropriate care for their children was palliative care [but] the children had not reached the stage when palliative care was required".If palliative care was inevitable, why quibble over when the ‘appropriate stage’ had been reached?
This seems like yet another case of the NHS mindlessly following a ‘tick box’ approach, and not listening to its customer.
In a statement issued on his behalf, solicitor Richard Egan blamed medical professionals and social services for contributing to Clarence's depression. It said Clarence's depression "was certainly not assisted by the constant pressure placed on the family by some individuals within the medical profession and social services who could not agree with Tania and Gary Clarence's stance of prioritising quality of life for their children and who were not readily willing to submit the children to operations and other interventions that they felt were not appropriate in the circumstances."It’s yet more of the ‘doctors know best’ approach. And it’s hardly surprising, since they are unlikely to suffer any of the fallout from this case.
"They also want to thank the police and the staff at the prisons who were never less than compassionate and sensitive, and the hospital carers who have treated Tania with great sympathy and understanding."An interesting comment, given the usual whinges from the criminal-cuddling fraternity in the left wing press that their ‘clients’ are degraded and treated with scorn solely because they are criminals.