Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Justice Denied
- Michael D Innis (27 November 2004)
-
Re: Justice Denied
- John Stone (28 November 2004)
-
Child abuse reviews: Turning a blind eye
- Clifford G. Miller (28 November 2004)
|
|
|||
|
Michael D Innis, Director Medisets International Home 4575
Send response to journal:
|
Editor, Clair Dyer reports “Mrs Hodge also said she would be drawing the attention of local authorities to the General Medical Council’s ruling last March striking off an expert witness, Colin Paterson, for serious professional misconduct”. The charge of “serious professional misconduct” was misconceived and his deregistration was a miscarriage of Justice. Those with an understanding of the pathophysiology of osteogenesis can see he is correct. I can’t see how the local authorities are going to have any better understanding of Dr Paterson’s outstanding contribution to Medical knowledge when the GMC failed to comprehend his argument. Michael Innis Competing interests: AS previously declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
Colin Paterson's fate really does serve as warning to anyone who tries to present this well researched branch of medical knowledge in a British court. Why is it that our institutions are incapable now of accepting differences of opinion: is the official truth so fragile? In other countries there are arguments on these matters but now in the UK we only have dogmatic truth. The review examined more than 30,000 cases in nine months. This means approximately 200 cases a day were processed. Just how many people were on the job? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Clifford G. Miller, Lawyer, graduate physicist, former University examining lecturer in law Beckenham, Kent, England BR3 3LA
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir CHILD ABUSE REVIEWS: TURNING A BLIND EYE These reviews appear not to satisfy basic requirements of public scrutiny and accountability. The limited scope seems intentionally a matter of political and administrative convenience. They appear not directed to and seem to have failed to address public concerns over what is going on behind closed doors. Do the case reviews get a clean bill of health or has there been political manipulation? Decide for yourself. This is far from the clean-cut story the headlines would have people think. According to the BMJ (1, 2, 3, 4) in the initial review only cases in which a final care order was made that depended "exclusively, or almost exclusively, on a serious disagreement between medical experts about the cause of the harm" were considered (result only 47 cases out of 5000 reviewed (3)). In the second stage review, only cases in which the medical evidence was disputed were examined and then action only taken if ' there were doubts about the reliability of that evidence, councils should only consider whether to apply for the care orders to be discharged or support an application by the parents' .... 'taking into account the child's current circumstances and best interests'. So, plenty of caveats in a process overseen by politician and Children's Minister Margaret Hodge. And, where is the independent scrutiny, public accountability and details made available so that it can be seen this was all done properly and above-board? It is also instructive to note that 'The court declared in the Cannings case that no prosecutions should be launched in future where reputable medical experts disagreed on the cause of death and no other cogent evidence was forthcoming.' (4) If that is why the reviews were so extremely limited in scope in such a serious matter, then the public need further information and explanation. As will be seen here, a direction that there should be no prosecutions in such circumstances in future may well not be a sufficient basis for limiting reviews, particularly where some medical professionals have been shown in the past to have got it so wrong and lacked an appreciation of the difference between science, fiction and fantasy. This was either wholly unchecked by the medical professional hierarchy or with its support. So something substantially more extensive is needed. With the greatest of respect to those professionals who do such a tremendous job daily, it is becoming very difficult for the public to judge which members of the medical profession qualify for the description 'professional' and where the 'science' is in 'medical science'. Were the reviews carried out reliable guides? The answer to the latter question is, sadly, a probable no. Were the reviews scientific or sufficient to satisfy reasonable scrutiny? And who carried out the reviews? It was the Council Social Services departments who sought the care orders in the first place. This makes the judged those judging - not a very reliable or satisfactory method bearing in mind the extensive cover-ups of the past and likely bias of the reviewer. Only reference to source material (if it exists in a reliable form) will ascertain what was reported as done. Until then this still leaves an unknown number of cases in which now discredited theories may still have been applied and where:-
What kinds of 'experts' are we talking about? What did they rely on for 'evidence'? In how many cases was it based on an 'anxious mother'? Where the cases did not 'depend' upon expert evidence, in how many cases was 'expert' evidence still given of, say, the MSbP kind, which might have prejudiced the judge into relying on other evidence for a decision, perhaps of what might have appeared to be injury which may have had an innocent explanation? In how many cases could something similar have occurred where there was no 'expert' evidence in the medical sense but evidence from child protection professionals espousing theories like MSbP? Again, we will never no because no one seems to have looked. How about cases where there was no dispute over the evidence because the parent was wrongly advised or was distraught or was blackmailed into admission at an early stage in the hope of getting the children back? In how many cases were the accused parents given the opportunity to comment? None. As to political manipulation, for which one motive would be to have a seemingly good record for the Childrens' Ministry, would Childrens' Minister and career politician Margaret Hodge be likely to allow manipulation on her 'watch'?. Would she instead keep firmly in mind these are children's lives, futures and happiness and that of their families? Surely the answer must be the latter, but there are, as can be seen, real questions about the value of these 'reviews' and hence concerns for how many children and their families have needlessly suffered. Again, we will never know because it would seem no one has looked. 1) Fewer care cases to be reopened than originally thought: BMJ, Feb 2004; 328: 482. 2) Five cases of child murder to be reopened: BMJ, May 2004; 328: 1154. 3) Review finds child experts disagreed in 47 cases out of 5000: BMJ, Jun 2004; 328: 1517. 4) Review of child care cases finds few instances that raise "serious doubt": BMJ 2004;329:1256 (27 November) Competing interests: None declared |
|||