The BBC reports the tragic death of a toddler who drowned in a swimming pool at the home of her foster carers in Hampshire. An inquiry is already underway as to how this death happened but detailed facts are not yet known. I can anticipate heavy criticism of the local authority for failing in their duty to take care of the child: no doubt her natural family are devastated, as are the foster carers. I once acted for grandparents in a case in which the grandfather was a devoted fan of carp and had a number of pools in the garden. The local authority were highly concerned about them and I remember thinking that this was the nanny state gone a bit mad. He had erected a large fence around the pools and a gate between the kitchen door and the garden as well as putting mesh on top of the pools and so on. That local authority had a policy that they would not approve placements of children if the home had a pool and frankly I thought they were making a bit of a fuss. I started to take the issue a bit more seriously though when I read Freakonomics – an excellent provocative book about facts and figures by US authors Levitt (an economist) & Dubner in which they claim that a swimming pool is more dangerous than a gun. Actually when you look at the letter of what they claim it is that a swimming pool is more dangerous than the gun of the householder. Statistics on UK drownings are difficult to find. In 2002, 17 children under 5 died from drowning, 13 of whom died in baths, garden ponds & related water freatures. Apparently 80% of pond drownings happen not at home but at a friend or neighbours, where presumably the child is in less familiar territory and perhaps supervision is more relaxed. The question must be to what lengths should we go in dictating to parents or carers whether the risk presented by water features in homes outweighs the benefits?
See the the ROSPA website for more information about children’s safety and water.
