Just Switch The TV Off

I wrote about the Eastenders Babysnatch storyline recently. About why merely switching the TV off was not an option for so many bereaved parents. About why they were protesting.




A poster on Mumsnet wrote tonight,


"in the week this storyline has been running, an additional 119 families will have lost their sons or daughters to stillbirth or neonatal death, as well as those who have lost theirs to cotdeath. This is real life for thousands of families, and EE has made a mockery of it".


Read more of what Caz has to say on her tribute blog to her gorgeous daughter, Belle.


While we discuss, and the BBC disseminates, children are dying. So much has been done over the past couple of decades, since Anne Diamond's "Back to Sleep" campaign saw numbers of cot deaths drop from 2500 annual deaths to 300 deaths.


The Eastenders team decided to concentrate on the ridiculous baby swap story rather than use their influence to further educate new parents of the risks and dangers of SIDS even at one point showing a baby surrounded by pillows, which goes against guidelines.


 Brian Kirkwood, executive producer of Eastenders stated today,


 "EastEnders has a long tradition of dealing with social issues in a powerful and dramatic way.  In its 25 years it has tackled many taboo subjects from HIV to paedophilia, matching drama with public service in a way that has continually kept it as one of the most talked about shows on television.

When we embarked on the story of Ronnie and Kat it was very much with this in mind.  We researched extensively to make sure we would be both factually correct and emotionally truthful."

No, Brian, you did not. If you had, you would have known that it was highly unlikely that a swap of this kind would have been even for a moment considered by a bereaved mother - even one as traumatised by her history of abuse and loss as Ronnie. None of the mothers on Mumsnet have ever thought about stealing a baby, in fact some of them have gone out of their way to avoid babies.


If the storyline had been properly researched and the research heeded, then you would have known that a woman who almost dies from a hemorrhage during birth would unlikely see her child being sent home without her.  That a child who is born with a clubfoot does not miraculously lose it a week later, and a midwife would not ignore that. That the midwife would not blithely dismiss the concerns of Ronnie, who expressed her concern about "her" baby because of the death of her friend's child, without informing her client about the risks of SIDs and how to reduce them. That the midwife would also not ignore the sudden weight-loss of the child.


I refuse to believe that there was no one in the scriptwriting team who did not query this decision. Someone along the line must have said, "Hmm, this is sailing a bit close to the wind, are we sure we want to run this?"


Brian also stated:

We received enormous help from charities, health professionals and bereaved parents themselves, who went out of their way to advise the story-liners, writers and actors.  Our aim was – and still is – to tell a strong story that would, in the telling - raise the profile of Cot Death in the UK.

It’s clear that we’ve managed to do this, and that traffic to the FSID’s website has increased by over 500%

completely ignoring the fact that the anger is not directed towards the storyline concerning the SIDs, but the babysnatch one - which FSID have stated that they were consulted about. Did they ask the health professionals and the bereaved parents if it was likely that a bereaved mother would steal another woman's child? They could have done so much more to help further FSIDs cause, instead of giving people more reason to mistrust bereaved parents.


Why can the BBC and Brian Kirkwood simply apologise for the hurt and pain caused to bereaved parents? Instead the rationalise their decision to go ahead with this storyline, that they were fully aware would cause upset which was run purely to up the ratings over the festive period.


Today posters on the Daily Mail website have ascertained that they found Eastenders' portrayal realistic, that bereaved women do steal babies. I trawled the net today looking for examples and did not find one. Maybe one of the people who are of the opinion that it does happen could help me out there.

"Every dramatic story-line - exaggerated or otherwise - that has appeared on a soap, has been a real-life tragedy for someone in this world. The loss of a child is something that most parents fear the most and luckily never experience. But life doesn't stop for the rest of the world when tragedy strikes someone else and it is important that those who have not been affected, are made aware of the things that can happen. Maybe EastEnders' portrayal of the tragedy is not considered by some people to be realistic but EastEnders is very rarely realistic anyway. For subjects such as cot deaths and overwrought mothers stealing other people's babies, there are no rules. People are all different and react differently"

"The writer and the commenters seem to think this is a "Preposterous and ludicrous" idea and something that human beings would NEVER DO - Completely ignoring the fact that IT HAPPENS."

This shows that the fears of the bereaved mothers are not ridiculous. Viewers of the show do not realise that it is a particularly cynical attempt to win the ratings war, with absolutely no factual base.


This will mean that they will be watched with suspicion, in case they do something completely crazy like steal a baby. It must happen, otherwise the BBC would not have said it does.


Shame on you, Brian Kirkwood. Shame on you, BBC.