When is an obligation not an obligation? This is the first question that arises from the new child abuse guidelines published yesterday by the Minister of State for Children, Mr Frank Fahey.
The guidelines are admirably clear about what should happen if child abuse is suspected. "Any person who suspects that a child is being abused or is at risk of abuse has a responsibility to report their concerns to the health board," they state plainly.
They seem to leave no room for teachers, doctors, nurses and other professionals to ignore concerns about the possibility that a child is being abused, or to decide that they will "handle" it themselves.
They must tell the health board, and that is that.
Or is it? The fact is that these are guidelines, not obligations. In an administrative sense the health boards and the Garda, for instance, can oblige their employees to enforce the guidelines. But there is no legal obligation on doctors, counsellors, sports bodies and others to follow them.
Where, then, does their usefulness lie?
Essentially it comes from the fact that no professional or organisation can ever again say that it did not know what to do when confronted with an allegation of abuse, whether that is chronic neglect, physical assault, emotional abuse or sexual abuse.
To flout these guidelines deliberately will place the professional or body concerned in very poor standing indeed in any subsequent inquiry.
And if a teacher, doctor or health board ignores the guidelines and a child suffers continuing abuse as a result, that fact alone is likely to weigh very heavily against them in any future action for damages which might be taken by the child.
But the guidelines may come to have an even greater force than this. The working party, chaired by Ms Maureen Lynott, which produced the guidelines wants them put on a statutory footing, and Mr Fahey agrees with this.
It will all be considered, he said, when the White Paper on mandatory reporting is published this year.
Giving the guidelines statutory force would oblige organisations and professionals to implement them. If that is not mandatory reporting - and Mr Fahey was very determined yesterday not to say that it was - then it is very close to it. Indeed, the ISPCC said yesterday that such a move would, in effect, result in the introduction of mandatory reporting.
One way or another, then, the guidelines published yesterday could prove to be a very powerful force for the protection of children.
That a recommendation allowing regional child protection committees to review how health boards had dealt with particular cases was dropped before the guidelines were published is disappointing, to say the least. It removes what could have been a powerful element of outside scrutiny of how the health boards - not always the most open of organisations - conduct their business.
The episode must raise fears about how the health boards will view the promised appointment of an Ombudsman for Children.
As Ms Lynott said yesterday, it was important that the guidelines not be "just a nice document" and that an effective mechanism for monitoring how and whether they were implemented be put in place.
The fact is that the guidelines are likely to bring a new effectiveness to our child-protection services, especially as the training programme for statutory and other bodies takes effect.
Children, and those concerned with their welfare, will benefit as a result.