The Parliamentary Health Committee’s major recommendations from its ‘Inquiry into improving child health outcomes and preventing child abuse’ has been applauded for its evidence-based research. However, its recommendations still need some further consideration.

The problem the inquiry sought to address was inequalities in health outcomes for children. The major recommendations would increase early intervention (that is, interventions focused on the period between pre-conception and up to three years of age).

Based on economic research, it was plausibly argued that a dollar spent on healthcare in the early years is at least a dollar saved on healthcare in the future, as prevention is always cheaper than the cure.

To this point, the recommendations seem solid. They have cross-party support, are informed by scientific evidence, and maximise cost-effectiveness. They even satisfy the age-old Helen Lovejoy plea of “won’t somebody please think of the children!?”

However, not to be impertinent, but shouldn’t that ‘somebody‘ be the biological parents first and foremost? Evidence may prove early intervention to be most cost-effective, but it doesn’t necessarily point to who should primarily be responsible for overseeing intervention. In this case, the recommendations seem to favour universal implementation, at least for some early intervention mechanisms.

Yet if the aim is to address health inequalities, wouldn’t targeted interventions be even more cost-effective? It could well be argued that the vast majority of parents are caring for their children and committed to doing everything for their health. For these parents, no intervention is ever needed. The only thing they may benefit from is guidance and information when they need it.

If most children enjoy good health in this country, surely most parents are already fulfilling their parental duty. The problem is that not all parents require intrusive government intervention, so why will all parents be subject to it? There is a fine line between providing support to parents and undermining parents’ responsibility through a (certainly well-meant) paternalism.

Incidentally, ‘paternalism’ derives from the Latin word for father. It is used to characterise situations in which the government takes on the role of a parent towards its citizens – in this case a parent of parents.

Of course, for those parents who are not fulfilling duties due to lack of will or circumstance, there is an arguable case for the government to use its coercive powers in the interests of minors. However, it ought to intervene only where it is established that the parent or custodian are not fulfilling their original responsibility.

There is no doubt that somebody must think of the children. But the proposition that ‘somebody‘ must always be the government is a shaky one.