Babypost? What do they expect?

[mbarker]

The news here in Japan spent some time on the opening of the akachanpost service today (that's baby post). The commentator noted that while people are referring to it this way, that is neither the official name (apparently the Stork's Cradle) nor particularly a good name. Basically, it is a system to allow mothers to anonymously leave their baby at a hospital.

The system is a hatch from the outside of the hospital. When opened, someone can reach in from outside and put a baby down on a bed inside. Opening the hatch sets off an alarm at the nurses' station. Then the nurses will take over.

Apparently, the hospital has gotten quite a bit of hate mail, mostly based on the notion that this encourages people to get rid of their babies. There are comments about the need to provide counseling, and the news people showed that in fact right beside the hatch there is an intercom and buzzer if people want to talk, along with a poster showing when to call (and numbers to call) for counseling or aid, plus several batches of business-card size contact cards. So it isn't as if the hospital isn't providing help.

The news people also pointed out that this is actually a new form of something that started 20 years ago. At that time, someone had found a baby left in a coin locker. There was a man who decided to do something. He set up a small shed, with a bed and a few furnishings, and made it publicly known that anyone could leave their baby there if they needed to. If I understood the news report correctly, he ended up raising three abandoned children.

Unfortunately, in 1995 the police asked him to shut down. Apparently someone was misusing the shed.

So now the hospital is trying a new incarnation of the same idea. The pediatrician involved, an aging doctor, talks about avoiding trapping people into killing babies and discarding them in places that clearly can't take care of them.

I found a news report online in English at http://www.cathnews.com/news/705/23.php which has some of the information.

I don't understand. Here is someone who is trying to deal with at least a part of a really bad problem, and instead of encouraging them, apparently people feel it necessary to vent their spleen on someone who is trying? Sure, it would be great if there were some way to ensure that people did not get in a situation where they need this service, but I haven't seen the magic wand that is big enough to really take care of that. So why not support someone who is trying?

Personally, if this service keeps one baby alive that would have died from neglect, inadequate food or other resources, or any of the other issues that may force someone to use this service, then I think we should applaud.

I know we like to shoot the messenger. I wasn't aware that we had to shoot the dreamers, those who are trying to build a better world, too.

Comments

[drammar.livejournal.com]

Safe haven laws in the US are becoming more and m more common place -- and I think that they're a wonderful idea. Anything that avoids dead babies is a wonderful thing and to be applauded.

Recently in my area (near Washington DC) a child was left at a safe haven. The only difficulty is that the safe haven laws only apply to children less than three days old and this child was about 7 months. Apparently the powers that be thought it necessary to track down and find the child's family and prosecute them for child abandonment. But you have to wonder what circumstances could have prompted a family to leave a child of that age, and the grief it must have caused them. Was it easier to leave a child at a safe haven rather than "officially" put the child into foster care or up for adoption?

Unfortunately, since this story involved neither sex nor scandal nor public official it has disappeared off the radar, and I don't what happened next.

[mbarker.livejournal.com]

Sigh. I agree, it doesn't seem to me to make sense to beat up people for trying to do the best they can, no matter whether the child is 3 days, 5 days, months, or even years old.

Interestingly, apparently Japan used to also have "adoption" by family and friends, even of relatively old children. Usually due to poverty or disaster, but the concept of someone else taking in the children seems to be relatively common. If I understand correctly, they became members of the family/clan, rather than some kind of servant or slave.

I gather it is only relatvely recently that we've grown civilized enough to punish people for this.

Focus on the children's rights, and what it takes for them get the best possible life. Also recognize that punishment sometimes makes a deterent, but to really get people to do something, rewards works best. That helps me to sort out the ethical tangles, at least.

Thanks!

Babies...

[pakwa26.livejournal.com]

It's interesting, isn't it, that Japan has one of the highest rates of abortion in the world, due largely to the appalling attitude to the contraceptive pill, which wasn't even available in Japan until quite recently, but don't get me started about how quickly they got Viagra...

I think we are all such hypocrites, saying that our children are the most important things in the world and then persecuting people who give them up (for whatever reason) - is it better to allow a child to be brought up in an abusive household with its parents than to encourage parents who are at least aware enough to recognise their limitations, and the limitations of what they can give their child, to give it up? I don't think so...

Re: Babies...

[mbarker.livejournal.com]

Didn't know this. Of course, given the relative attitudes towards males and females in Japan, it wouldn't be too surprising.

Good point about trying to force people to raise children no matter what. Some situations, it's really best to allow people to get out of it and move on.

Thanks!