This is really difficult. See, there are a couple of tricky things about enshrining certain rights like this, with the imposition of a more Napoleonic system on top of the existing largely common law one. Firstly, that it short-circuits any discussion about what the core responsibilities of the social contract are. So a bunch of stuff that's taken for granted, such as capital infrastructure (eg roads, railways) doesn't get included but a bunch of stuff that feels hard-won or under threat (eg minority rights) does get included.
I assume some things will continue to be supported by the state in a common-law type way, ie because that's how it's worked in recent memory while other things are protected by statute. I can't take the state to court about potholes or the failing rail system, regardless of their impact on my quality of life; but I can if I'm being discriminated against at work on account of being female.
That, then, creates a kind of two-tier set of expectations: one lot protected by statute, one lot merely a matter of common law and custom. The only way to change this is by adding statutory protection for a wider set of the things currently falling under common law. This is arguably what's going on when you hear of people going to the ECHR over matters which, in common-sense terms, aren't really about human rights at all - for example the right to install a satellite dish on a building when the building freeholder has forbidden it.
Meanwhile, it's not possible to have the debate about whether the balance is right: are we giving statutory protection to the right set of things? In protecting minority rights but not national infrastructure, have we got our priorities right? This is an ethical and philosophical debate. I don't know where I stand on it. But it does worry me that it doesn't seem possible to have it, because it's already a fait accompli.
In questioning the HRA it's easy to fudge the issue and claim that in doing so I'm questioning questioning Riven's or Peachy's determination to get education and proper treatment for their DC. I'm not. But I do think it's worth having a proper, serious debate about which rights we enshrine as it were 'above' the normal course of legislation, if we're not acknowledging that this is in effect what's happening. Because while it may start with an entirely worthy and deserving set of cases using these laws to protect interests such as those of SN children, it may rapidly become something that's abused by people with access to expensive lawyers, simply to protect entirely selfish interests that have nothing whatsoever to do with the spirit of the original laws and in the process invalidating a legal system that has served the UK reasonably well for centuries and centuries.