[THERE IS nothing like a dying child to…]

Scan page 13

THERE IS nothing like a dying child to bring out the worst in the press.

Remember the little Italian boy who died a slow and agonising death after falling down a well shaft? How could you forget it? It was good box office with close up shots of grieving parents on television and line drawings in the papers, both quality and gutter, to illustrate where the child was lying.

Now less rich in detail, but richer by far in satisfying moral humbug comes the case of the Mongol child 'condemned to live' by the Court of Appeal.

(Different though each case is, they both differ dramatically from the thousands of children in Britain and other 'advanced' capitalist societies whose brains and lives are being dimmed by lead poisoning. Bourgeois morality is ideally tailored to "individual' agonising but laus apart wnen controntea C-11- Lau atri with perfectly avoidable mass suffering).

Mongolism - more accurately known as Down's Syndrome - produces children who are able to learn to walk and run but whose mental age never passes that of a small child.

The problems for parents are immense in a society where care of the mentally and physically handicapped is pushed back 99% (and now more and more) onto the family.

In children who survive through their 20s into their 30s the effect on a family (and inevitably mostly on the woman) is devastating. (There are even special voluntary societies sprung up to help the brothers and sisters of mentally handicapped children).

As the parents grow old they have to cope - usually alone and with a monthly or bi-monthly visit from a social worker - with a large and uncontrollable child whose physical sexual development is complete, and whose need for attention is more than that of an active two year old child.

It is little wonder that the most common wish of Down's Syndrome parents is that their child dies before they do.

That is the background to the court of appeal ruling and the sensational publicity it attracted. question valid be one tot In a socialisi what kind of life a child could expect from society (it is at least possible that the decision would superficially be the same as that made by the appeal court).

But in capitalist Britain the question is posed in a different way: who has ownership rights over the child?

In the first place the parents are left to 'agonise' over the decision. Whatever the final outcome it is 'their' decision. Once the court has decided otherwise the child is a 'ward of court' - or to put it crudely the state decides to transfer the rights of ownership rom the parents to the juages.

Had the parents been working class the press would no doubt have had a different angle. But we are told (by the Daily Mail) that they are "responsible cultured people" . (In fact the Mail goes on to give enough detail about the parents to invalidate the judges' ruling that the family be not identified).

All the papers posed the question as balancing 'moral questions' or as the parents' QC put it most crassly: "the case touches upon the value of human life itself."

Language

Not one of the gutter papers explained anything about mongolism and what kind of nursing and care a Down's Syndrome baby needs. Instead their headlines expressed themselves in the language of the murder "This Baby Must Live"_ Sun and Express, "Judge Saves Baby's Life" - Star; "A Chance of Life" - Daily Mail.

Their first paragraphs (which are supposed to summarise the essence of the story) also captured bourgeois methods of thought precisely.

The Sun said:

"A Battle over whether a new-born baby should live or die was fought out in court yesterday."

The Star - continuing with gallows language said:

"A 10-day old Mongol girl condemend to die was given the chance of life by two Appeal judges yesterThe Daily, Mail, somewhat long-windedly but capturing all the various strands - said:

"A desperately ill mongol baby was given the chance of life by two senior judges yesterday after her parents had taken the heartbreaking decision to let her die."

There is an obvious and alarming extension to the court (and the press) reaction, particularly as Down's Syndrome foetus are aborted when they are picked up in screening (how about an inquiry into why this one was missed). With courts and the press ruling in favour of medical intervention in the case of this baby, how long before they extend the argument to argue against abortions.

The case will be hailed by the Life lobby (who invariably portray Down's Syndrome babies as happy, lovable little darlings) and will use it to argue for court intervention against abortions.

Screamed But the liberal press, which takes a cautious view of the judges ruling and believes that courts 'ought not to interfere' has nothing progressive to offer. Their solution is simply to dump the problem back onto the family's lap. Back to the agony, the big headlines.

Meanwhile, according to the Star, after the case:

'The mother screamed: "Leave me alone" • Whom did they think she was shouting at?