Dilation in Isolation
| Author | Brendan O'Keefe |
| Published date | 01 September 1990 |
| Date | 01 September 1990 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/026455059003700318 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
148
problem
that
affects
only
ex-prisoners
from
the
unit.
There
are,
after
all,
families
living
in
bed
and
breakfast
ac-
commodation
all
over
the
country,
often
for
years.
Visiting
restrictions:
I
certainly
feel
that
there
is
room
for
improvement
regarding
visiting
arrangements
for
children
who
otherwise
would
not
be
brought
to
see
their
mothers,
but
many
women
are
now
allowed
overnight
temporary
release
and
day
visits
to
help
compensate
for
this.
Babies
are
not
in
prison,
they
are
where
they
should
be
at
this
time
in
their
lives,
in
the
care
of
their
mothers
who
happen
to
be
in
prison,
but
not
usually
without
good
reason.
They
are
well
cared
for,
warm,
well
fed
and
lov-
ed
by
us
all
and,
most
of
all,
they
all
appear
to
be
very
happy.
Sister
Mary
Gledhill
HMP
Askham
Grange
Dilation
in
Isolation
Malcolm
Cowburn
(Pj
March
1990)
is
correct
to
decry
the
treatment
Dr
Marietta
Higgs
received
from
certain
quarters,
most
particularly
from
Stuart
Bell
and
the
media.
However,
to
dismiss
all
criticism
of
Dr
Higgs
as
belonging
to
the
voice
of
’the
conser-
vative
male
forces
of
healthy
society’
is
glib,
in
my
view.
Dr
Higgs
and
her
colleagues
placed
an
absolute
reliance
upon
the
diagnostic
competence
of
the
anal
dilation
test
that
even
the
test’s
developers
did
not
accord.
Whilst
anal
dilation
is
in
itself
an
indicator
of
possi-
ble
abuse,
the
fact
that
dilation
may
be
the
result
of
factors
other
than
sexual
abuse
means
surely
that
the
test
should
not
be used
in
isolation.
This
seems
to
be
so
self-evident
that,
for
Dr
Higgs
and
her
team
to
ignore
this,
amounts,
I
would
suggest,
to
professional
in-
competence.
It
has
been
said
in
Dr
Higgs’
defence
that
some
of
the
cases
she
dia.gnosed
have
subsequently
been
re-
referred
on
the
grounds
of
suspected
sexual
abuse;
the
implication
being
therefore
that,
in
some
cases
at
least,
f~~
Higgs
was
correct
and
her
methods
are
thereby
vindicated.
I
do
not
believe
this
defence
stands
up
how~~e~
Any
large
sample
of
families
taken
at
ran-
dom
is
bound
to
turn
up
some
cases
of
sexual
abuse.
A
computer
selecting
families
from
the
Poll
Tax
Register
at
random
is
just
as
likely
to
uncover
cases
of
child
sex
abuse.
We
would
not
then
credit
the
computer
with
great
diagnostic
powers
and
neither
should
we
do
so,
I
suggest,
with
Dr
Higgs.
The
notion
that
child
sex
abuse
is
prevalent
in
society
and
not
solely
the
preserve
of
those
with
psychiatric
pro-
blems
is
one
that
is
gaining
(albeit,
far
too
slowly)
acceptance.
I
feel,
however,
that
Dr
Higgs
and
her
colleagues
helped
only
to
retard
this
process
Brendan
O’Keefe
Probation
Officer,
Camden
To continue reading
Request your trial