I was still puzzling over an original dream experience yesterday morning when I switched on the TV for the first time in the day just before 11.30 am to watch the talk leading to Prime Minister’s Question Time when the programme announced the death of the son of the Opposition leader, the Conservative politician David Cameron. Ivan was six years of age and suffered from a rare form of cerebral palsy which involved minor and life threatening epileptic fits throughout the day and night. Sadly his death did not come to his parents as a shock as it was something they had expected since the disability was diagnosed shortly after his birth, and there had been several life threatening moments beforehand.
Fortunately, the condition is a rare one although the number of children with the more severe forms off cerebral palsy is not. It is estimated that there are only about 100 children in the world with the added problem of constant and sometimes severe epileptic fits which is called Ohtahara Syndrome and where half are known to die within the first two years.
Little is known about the cause of a disease which is a form of brain damage and therefore the rest of the body does not receive the signals required for normal development. The disease is detected within the first days and one impact on the individual life is the failure to grow and develop normal functioning.
The Cameron’s son, Ivan was completely dependent and was unable to speak although he could communicate with his eyes and could smile. The Cameron’s were fortunate in having the means to afford the best level of help and physical adaptations within the home and to effectively lead “normal” lives with their two children. However anyone who has had contact with those who decide to directly care for a disabled child, adult or aged parent know how it impacts on the lives of everyone in the home, on relationships between couples, between couples and their children and affecting anyone else living in the household.
In the instances of the Cameron’s there is his work as a party political leader and potentially the next Prime Minister and there are also the social roles expected of the wife of a the leader of a political party, and potentially that of a Prime Minister.
One of my earliest experiences as a child care officer in training was to be sent to spend just an afternoon to a hospital catering for severely disabled children and I was asked to sit with a boy who had no mobility and no communication but who I found responded with his eyes to my presence after he became aware that I was there and staying there for what became two hours. I was the only person, other than staff, that the boy had seen since his admission to the hospital several years before. The experience affected my deeply. I am no good at visual memory but I remember him and the emotions experienced that day and the joy I experienced when I knew he was aware of my presence and was responding. I did not experience the same feelings again until forty years later and visiting my care mother in hospital after she had, as it developed, only temporarily recovered, from an infection contracted at a hospital where she did not want to be, and had said so prior to admission. Then in 2007 it was my privilege to send time with my birth mother who aged 100 and not very different from Ivan in that she was completely dependent on others, had no speech, was unable to digest food or drink, was at peace and ahs the priest who attended in ehr last week observed, as ha also the parish priest when visiting her earlier at the hopme comments, you could see the faith and the acceptance fo what was happening in her eyes.
The difference between the experience of all parents and relatives with a severely disabled child and Mr and Mrs Cameron, and all those who also are the parents of children with a similar condition, is the uncertainty and the knowledge that there is a one in two chance that the child will not reach its second birthday and that every day after that is a bonus.
It is understood that it has been necessary for the child to receive medical care in hospital on several occasions and that the outcome was always uncertain and therefore when it was necessary for him to attend again during the early of Wednesday morning they would have hoped to have brought him home again. This was not to be.
It would have been possible for Prime Minister’s Question Time to have continued as planned with former Party Leader William Hague briefed for the six questions that Mr Cameron would have posed. It was clear from what Mr Hague said that it was the suggestion of the Prime Minister that in the circumstances, the half an hour period should be cancelled, only the second time this has happened, the first with the sudden death of the Labour Leader of the Opposition, John Smith in 1994 and which led to the election of Tony Blair
I thought what the Prime Minister had to say was moving and effective and would have helped Mr Cameron and his wife as well as their two children if they were able to watch. I felt it was the real Mr Brown speaking rather than Mr Brown playing the role of Prime Minister under fire from the Opposition at Question Time. This says more about the value of P.M.Q’s than about the ability of Mr Brown and for which Mr Cameron in particular must take responsibility for having stated he wanted to end Punch and Judy politics he has become its leading and most effective exponent, and indeed he has scored many telling points over recent months, so I understand why he has persisted. The problem is that Mr Brown has responded with increasing confidence and the exchanges have only served to create a divide when what the nation needs is unity of purpose and in approach. As Mr Hague and the Liberal Social Democrat deputy Vince Cable adopted the approach of the statesmen they both are, I am sure I was not alone in thinking that if only the weekly exchange could be conducted in a similar fashion in the future or abolished.
Mr Brown in particular and the British media subsequently, also emphasised the more general significance of death of a child to any parent who has found themselves in a similar situation, and the younger the age of the child the more tragic does everyone who learns of the event feel. All the TV news media were able to speak on camera to parents of such children and to doctors and help networks, so that out of this one tragedy it is to be hoped there will be greater public attention and support for those in similar situations. The following day I watched part of a TV phone in programme where bereaved parents expressed their grief and others in similar position explained some of the issues in their lives, with one in particular mentioning that an able bodied child had asked that dreaded question, “does this mean my brother or sister was likely to die as well.”
Andrew Neil mentioned in the late night Politics’ show that members of the public had asked why there was not a similar response in the House of Commons to the deaths of British servicemen reported killed in Afghanistan this week and in most week’s now. I have previously mentioned that I wrote to the Three Political Parties and the Speaker of the House of the House of Commons that it had become incongruous for the three Party leaders to express their sorrow at the passing of lives of the service personnel and the immediately move on to knockabout party politics trying to make a media catching headline. In fact there has been a sense of ritual about such announcements over recent months. My suggestion was that the Speaker of the House should announce the deaths and expressed the sympathy of the House and then there should be a pause of one minute or two.
However the decision of the Prime Minister to curtail Question time was the right one in the particular circumstances and because of the timing and does not involve a precedent.
A different issues raised beforehand was the decision of the Party Leader to talk about his son and children, to show them without he family home on television and talk about the family experience of using the NHS at his Party’s annual political conference. In general it is important to separate the public and the private and I have made this one aspect of my work project. First there is the issue of parental power and authority and whether children will regret the publicity in the future even if they give their consent in the present. There is the problem that having given consent once the danger is that that it will be regarded as licence by some sections of the media, especially those from other countries who do not have the same restraints as in the UK, to trail the youngsters subsequently, especially when they become adolescents. There is the inevitable accusation of using the children as props for political posturing.
However, given that I support a different political party, I can say with conviction that having heard the Desert Island Discs programme, the home interview ans heard the whole of the speech to Party Conference as well as other news media, Mr Cameron has demonstrated that for any rule, principle or approach in general there are always exceptions and which also emphasises that it is often not what you do but how you do it. For me the most revealing truth si that of the photograph of Mr Cameron holding his son, kissing him on the cheek. For a child whose must have found life frightening and frustrating, especially with a brother and sister who could move, talk and sing the picture communicates security, comfort and love. Something which could not be posed and which can only reflect something deeper and ongoing. That it was expressed with a father reveals the nature of the man, It also speaks volumes for the mother of the child
Nick Robinson of the BBC made the point, as he often has before, that because of their different backgrounds and personalities Mr Cameron and the Prime Minister have little in common and it is said that Mr Brown does not like Mr Cameron. Certainly Mr Cameron has appeared passionate about his view that the country would do better with a different Prime Minister that goes beyond normal political ambitions of an opposition leader. Yet the extraordinary fact is that the Prime Minister, and in particular his wife will be among the few at Westminster with first hand experience of such as situation as the couple lost their first child after only ten days.
Some people are better than others at not allowing the realities of human life to intrude in their occupational life and certainly a cool head and steady hand in required at times of crisis or when facing difficult decisions where doing what is right for the country, or just doing what is right will conflict with the interests of the Political Party or personal interests.
However the track record suggests that the Prime Minister is more able to cope and adjust to such a situation than Mr Cameron. What has worried me, until yesterday, is that far from communication a mood of shock, horror, anger, concern and worry over the unfolding financial and economic situation, Gordon Brown has appeared buoyant as clearly his approach and efforts to reverse the rapid descent into economic depression has struck a chord with politicians in Europe, in the USA and around the world, and his position as Labour Party appeared to become unchallenged and his prospect of remaining Prime Minister after the next General Election appeared significantly improved. The worse the situation became, the more confident and happier Mr Brown appeared to be and he even appeared to thrive at the succession of clever and damaging attacks Mr Cameron was making at Prime Minister’s Question Time. My hunch is that Mr Cameron will be more affected by the death of his son that even he can appreciate at this time.
If it were to become a straight choice between voting for a man who always hid or tried to hide what he felt when before the camera and the media or a person who sometimes lets their emotions get the better of them, then my vote will go to Mr Cameron.
However, although we have moved into the era of Presidential election for the UK General Election, the Prime Minister leads a government of individuals within a political party with a manifesto and planned programme as well as a history. It is wise to vote for or against the total package rather than one individual however appealing.
How both Prime Minister and Mr Cameron respond to this death, and to the media and public response, is likely to govern the outcome of the General Election than most events, including the perilous economic situation. However whatever I think now, subsequent events over the time until the General Election could changes things dramatically either way. My hunch is that the life and death of Ivan Cameron will have a profound effect on the future of British Politics and that the effect will be a positive one. I hope so.
No comments:
Post a Comment