Mo - you have misunderstood something about the English language. “The baby ought not to have suffered” contains neither a moral nor a prudential “ought”.
This is not shocking stuff. For instance, there is a sense in which “ought” simply expresses a probability. “After so many rolls of the dice, snake eyes ought to come up soon.” Or a simple desire “You ought to come to the party”. To say “That ought not to have happened” is like the last example. “Ought” is not restricted to moral or prudential uses. Nor to desires.
Notice though, the difference between “you ought to come” and “it ought to be snake eyes” - in the first, it’s a person who is being asked to do something. This at least puts the question in a potentially moral arena - “You ought to come over… because this will show support for the worthy cause that is being feted that night” - or some possible moral act that we could attach to the basic phrase.
“It ought to be snake eyes” is analogous to “It ought not to have happened” in that no entity is assigned any responsibility. “Ought” can be used outside the moral or prudential arena, and is, all the time.
Again, this is not new ground - it is known to many English-speakers over the age of about seven, I would say. To say that “it ought to be morning soon” is either prudential or moral is not only nonsense, it’s illiterate.
When are you going to get serious, here?