AS A paediatrician - and parent I have many unfulfilled wishes for the well being of Irish children. I would wish them all to be loved and protected, preferably by two parents.

I would be in favour of universal breast feeding, compulsory immunisation, enforced school attendance and access to all preventive medical services. But I would be opposed to mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse as demanded by the ISPCC and others on the basis of several high profile cases.

Mandatory reporting implies mandatory investigation, mandatory adjudication and mandatory decision. Mandatory reporting of suspicions will result in widespread implication of guilt until proven otherwise.

Those in favour of mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse or neglect have a responsibility to define clearly what they mean by (a) suspicion. Does a hearsay suggestion from a neighbour constitute reasonable suspicion? (b) What or who is "at risk"? By definition, for example, a child being reared by actively drug abusing parents is "at risk". Should they all be reported? (c) What is child abuse?

The definition of abuse is arbitrary and subjective. The severe cases (fractures, bruises etc) are relatively easy, but what of smacking, neglect and wilful deprivation? The ISPCC is actively campaigning to abolish physical punishment of children. Should all parents known to smack or strike their children be mandatorily reported?

(d) What constitutes child neglect? Consider two scenarios. I regularly pass travellers in the street begging with their children. Some of them attend my clinic. The behaviour of their parents is, in my opinion, an abuse of children. Should I be obliged to report all of them to the statutory authorities?

A public health nurse has a large number of single deprived parents in her visiting area. Some of them occasionally leave young children unattended when they go out. The nurse rightly warns that this is neglect. Should she statutorily report all such parents on first offence? She would rapidly lose the confidence of these mothers and join the ranks of "them" (i.e., the law etc).

In the ISPCC scenario, do the "health professionals" have a duty to report incidences of suspected abuse while "on duty" or at any time? A family doctor in a rural area may never be off duty, and his contacts with his patients will be professional, social and casual.

How could he/she retain the confidence of that community if he/she had to (in the words of Cian O Tighernaigh) "report all suspicions or knowledge that a child has been abused or neglected, is being abused or neglected, or may be at risk of abuse or neglect directly to the statutory authorities" (Irish Doctor, 1996).

The sad truth of Ireland 1996 is that many children are reared in situations that render them "at risk" of abuse or neglect. Children of alcoholics, of drug addicts, of mothers who have had multiple parenting partners, of single teenage parents, for example, are all at increased statistical, and in some cases real, risk of abuse. Should they all be reported?

MANDATORY reporting carries with it the reality of false allegation. Kieran McGrath (editor of Irish Social Worker) recently stated that three quarters of mandatorily reported cases of abuse in Australia turned out to be unsubstantiated.

False allegations of abuse are to families harmful, painful and protracted. They are especially hurtful in small, rural communities where, despite apparent confidentiality, rumours or suspicion of abuse can spread rapidly through the community.

One of the earlier myths promulgated about child abuse is that children never lie. Children may not lie, but they are very capable of repeating lies fed to them by one or other parent, in disputed marital breakdowns.

It is very difficult, if not impossible, for a doctor or nurse to retain a continuing professional relationship with a family they have wrongly accused of child abuse. Will the law really protect professionals who make a wrong but well intentioned allegation?

There are numerous medical pitfalls in child abuse. I cite two. A five year old boy is brought to hospital with multiple "suspicious" bruises. Ten days after presentation - an unusual bruising disorder is diagnosed. A mandatory obligation to report suspicions on day one would have been very unhelpful.

Another example. A six month old baby is brought to hospital with seizures. A brain scan reveals a haemorrhage into the brain. The appearances are consistent with the "shaken baby syndrome" (a known type of child abuse injury). On questioning, the parents say the child stopped breathing and that they vigorously shook him. An obligation to report the suspicion could be devastating to parents.

Mandatory reporting will employ battalions of social workers, demand caseloads of data collection, involve gardai in numerous domestic squabbles and require counsellors galore to calm the falsely accused. Will it protect children and prevent cases of child abuse? Probably, but at what cost?

The ISPCC's campaign is well intentioned but poorly thought out. If mandatory reporting were introduced, professionals would probably report every little thing if only to protect themselves, not children.

One of my children, when younger, was heard one day shouting out of his bedroom window: "Don't hit me, don't hit me." Should I have been reported?