Over the past dozen or more years we have found ourselves debating the value of four-sided isolation fencing around swimming pools before city councils, county boards of supervisors and the State Legislature. At all of these political fights we were opposed by a coalition of “child drowning prevention” advocates. Perhaps the most prestigious of these organizations demanding four-sided fencing legislation has been the National Academy of Pediatrics. They have appeared in every hearing from the first one before the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.

At every occasion, the pediatricians have staked their professional reputations on their “certain knowledge” that such isolation fencing would have saved all of the children who have drowned and who have been injured in near-drowning accidents. SPEC has always argued that this assertion was false. Isolation fences create a false sense of security, “allowing” those responsible for supervising toddlers playing in yards with fenced pools, to drop their guards for “just a moment or two” to answer phones, front doors, make bathroom trips, etc., etc.

This past June the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics published the accompanying study, “Childhood Drowning and Fencing of Outdoor Pools in the United States, 1994.” The scientific study, perhaps the only thorough study on this subject in the U.S., was designed to determine the effectiveness of four-sided isolation fencing in preventing child pool accidents. The study came to the same conclusion as did Dr. Lay's study in Australia nearly a decade ago.

“Our research suggests that even if all residential pools in the United States were properly fenced, most drowning among children 5 years of age would not be prevented.”