Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Misconceptions
- Penny Mellor (15 January 2005)
-
Children forgotten? No. Traumatised and kidnapped? Yes.
- C Johnson (15 January 2005)
-
Why should people love or trust this system?
- John Stone (15 January 2005)
-
Re: Misconceptions
- Dr John Rumbold (15 January 2005)
-
Keeping mum about flawed theories - helped by secret courts
- Lisa C Blakemore-Brown (16 January 2005)
-
'Munchausen's by proxy' and allegations of infanticide
- Ed Cooper (16 January 2005)
-
MSBP MYTH RESURRECTED
- Michael D Innis (16 January 2005)
-
Our Society cares greatly!.
- Charles Pragnell (17 January 2005)
-
Oh dear, oh dear, Raj Persaud
- Mark Struthers (17 January 2005)
-
Re: Re: Misconceptions
- Penny Mellor (18 January 2005)
-
Families denied Justice
- Michael D Innis (18 January 2005)
-
Re: 'Munchausen's by proxy' and allegations of infanticide
- Penny Mellor (18 January 2005)
-
Re: Oh dear, oh dear, Raj Persaud
- Rita Dr Pal (18 January 2005)
-
Pity the children
- Mark Struthers (18 January 2005)
-
Re: Re: Re: Misconceptions
- Dr John Rumbold (18 January 2005)
-
Re: Re: Re: Re: Misconceptions
- Penny Mellor (18 January 2005)
-
Misconceptions
- John Stone (19 January 2005)
-
Personal Experience
- John Chapman (19 January 2005)
-
Re: Personal Experience
- John Stone (20 January 2005)
-
Warning to anyone thinking of posting a response
- Chapman John (20 January 2005)
-
Infant deaths and the media
- Robert Scott-Jupp (21 January 2005)
-
Re: Personal Experience
- Penny Mellor (21 January 2005)
-
Re: Warning to anyone thinking of posting a response
- Penny Mellor (21 January 2005)
-
Re: Infant deaths and the media
- Mark Struthers (21 January 2005)
-
Re: Infant deaths and the media
- John Stone (22 January 2005)
-
Re: Infant deaths and the media
- David & Davina Hollisey-Mclean (23 January 2005)
|
|
|||
|
Penny Mellor, Advocate Home WV9 5HX
Send response to journal:
|
Dr Persaud states in his article "Yet because family courts remain essentially private, unlike criminal proceedings, the media never cover this aspect of paediatricians' work and the relative success with which it protects children" This is essentially a misconception and a little naive, journalists, as the law stands today, cannot divulge if they have studied medical notes or court reports relating to the family proceedings in alleged MSbP cases as it would put them and the families in contempt and indeed once a family has been named in the criminal division, there is nothing to stop the media from reporting that family division cases still ensue as long as nothing leads to the identification of the child/ren. The media did report that Trupti Patel still had family court proceedings ongoing after her acquittal. [1] Both Sally Clark and Angela Cannings were allowed immediate access to their surviving children upon release and the local authorities did not initiate any new care proceedings against either of them as they had "no concerns". Dr Persaud also states "For example, one doctor found that the birth of their own child had been reported widely on the internet by groups campaigning against the syndrome," In defence of that statement, the birth of this paediatrician's child was reported in a local paper when they had tried to contact him for an interview and was published on their web site. The information came from the media, not from the "campaigners". [2] If Dr Persaud would like to see evidence of how some paediatricians come to accuse a parent of MSbP, then I would be more than happy to supply that evidence to him. Perhaps then he, as a psychaitrist, can help to explain the neuroleptic adverse events of some of the drugs that have been prescribed to infants who have then gone on to have seizures that get mistaken for epilepsy, for further information and evidence of this perhaps Dr Persaud should try reading the front page of www.msbp.com and ordering the DVD M.A.M.A/mama at http://www.munchausenmovie.com./ in which he will see members of his own profession stating that false allegations of MSbP have happened because of certain drugs adverse events being overlooked as a cause of the child's condition. As to the allegation that we, the campaigners, don't think about the children, well I can only speak as I find, for my part, as far as I am aware, I was the ONLY person to help the Cannings surviving child have some sort of normality in her life outside of her family and since Angela's release not ONE professional has approached the family to offer any help, they had to go and ask. As to the falsely accused parents, well I have found all without exception to be deeply caring about the way in which children are looked after and protected and what is more there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. I take it that as Dr Persaud is so concerned about the fate of the children, that he will endeavour to contact the Cannings and offer his professional support for free, given the truly devastating ordeal this child has been put through and study the evidence relating to the adverse drug reactions that the children have suffered, as we have and then maybe issue an apology to the campaigners, who actually do have the protection of children as their first priority. Finally if Dr Persaud can give his professional understanding of what is or isn't MSBpP we would all be eternally grateful, although I'll bet it differs from half a dozen other versions! [1]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-712178,00.html [2]http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_objectid=13854675%26method=full%26siteid=50082 -name_page.html Competing interests: Campaigner agaibnst false allegations of MSbP etc |
|||
|
|
|||
|
C Johnson, parent LA9
Send response to journal:
|
Raj Persaud writes that everyone has forgotten about the children. I find this a very strange statement. Please be assured, professor, that falsely accused parents campaigning for their lost and persecuted families most definitely have not forgotten about the children. Most of the time they think of little else. The other "side", as you call them, may have forgotten about the children. After all, theirs is a battle for professional reputation. For the parents it is a struggle for something far more important - the safety and welfare of their loved ones... yes, their children. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
With all due regard to the need to protect children from the glare of publicity a system which is both completely opaque and completely unaccountable is: a) a natural target for suspicion b) a natural breeding ground for abuse Raj Persaud is wrong: disliking faceless, omnipotent institutions is both human and natural, and says nothing about how we as a society regard children. Did anybody else find the title of this piece offensive? Not really a subject for drollery at all, you might think. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dr John Rumbold, n/a West Midlands
Send response to journal:
|
It is interesting the parts of Professor Persaud's excellent and insightful article which Ms Mellor does not comment on eg the fact that very few cases have been found to be of concern as opposed to the hundreds ot thousands predicted by pro-MsbP campaigners (well documented on pro- MSbP sites). Professor Persaud gives an example of the kind of personal harassment of paediatricians that has occurred on pro-MSbP sites, for which Ms Mellor only answers in the specific, rather missing the point. MAMA's messageboard has been used by the prosecution in the past so currently the posts are moderated but in the past much of the content was pure character assassination. The media coverage has been carefully guided by pro-MSbP campaigners, and always focusses on MSbP rather than FII. Little attention is padi to the fact that infant homicide is much lower in the UK than similar societies. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Lisa C Blakemore-Brown, Psychologist UK based
Send response to journal:
|
"At no point did the article give any coherent account of how paediatricians actually arrive at their testimony." This was attributed to an article by the journalist, John Sweeney, by Raj Persaud, but it equally applies to Persaud's own article. Family Courts and the secrecy which shrouds them have been able to hide these `accounts` and hence no-one is accountable and no fault is ever admitted. Surely even Dr Persaud must realise that the finding of just ONE wrong case amongst many thousands is utterly ludicrous. We would expect about 5% just by chance. The fact that he is not rather concerned about this result emerging from the internal scrutiny of outcomes in secret courts and secret processes which cannot be viewed and therefore not challenged is surely deeply disconcerting in itself. Using a process of `marking your own homework` (1) to determine if errors had been made, in such profoundly serious matters is beyond belief in our so called advanced society. Who is going to admit fault? The whole system seems to be in denial. I am not a campaigner and do not stand with campaigners. I am a professional psychologist and have applied logic to all this over a period of almost 10 years now. Because my views concur with those of the campaigners does not make me a campaigner. But I do agree with the campaigners - maybe not with the methods - but certainly with the arguments. This leaves me between a rock and a hard place. There are enormous problems with the methodology, the omission of crucial information and there is file tampering, misrepresentation and misattribution, without a shadow of doubt; the process of influence by higher status individuals; the power of the secret courts and Government agencies who can act on no evidence, just rumour, and the punitive draconian outcomes increasingly demanded by the baying medieval crowd. How sad that this includes many professionals who I used to respect but never will again in my entire life. Frankly, Raj Persaud, this theory is flawed, and if you do not wonder about it even one tiny bit, then so is your own thinking. Had you attended the Portcullis House conference on False Allegations of Child Abuse (2) at which I spoke (3) you may have learned something...then again, maybe not...minds have to be open to learn and the mindset of the MSBP acccuser and supporter of the MSBP accusers appears to be entirely rigid and closed. Cognitive dissonance is alleviated through a process of twisting every challenge to retain the original thought, even if highly distorted logically. I don't need to tell Dr Persaud where he will find that kind of thinking in DSM-IV or ICD-10, I'm sure. But he may have a problem finding MSBP. Surely those of us who truly care about children want to know the truth about whether they have been abused or whether they have real illnesses, disorders, brain damage and deaths. (4) If something else is responsible - shouldn't we be wanting to hunt out the culprit instead of denying the introduction of processes which will allow us to look at all possibilities? There can surely be no rational argument against such moves, for the sake of the protection of multiple thousands of children and their families thw world over? 1. Charles Pragnell Social Work Consultant Personal Communication 2004. 2. Abuse Allegations - Systemic Failure . Conference organised by the All Party Group for Abuse Investigations (APGAI) Portcullis House. UK Parliament. 2nd December 2004. 3. Blakemore-Brown LC "MSBP - A Pseudo-Scientific Trap" 2004. Conference as in (1) 4. Blakemore-Brown LC "Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy" Letters. The Psychologist. September 1997. Page 393. Competing interests: Expert in Autism - and False MSBP |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ed Cooper, Locum Cons. Pediatrician London
Send response to journal:
|
Even Raj Persaud seems to find some conection between 'Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy'and the cases of Sally Clark, Angela Cannings and Trupti Patel. What is this connection? Meadow described "Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy" back in 1982 (Arch Dis Child 1982 Feb;57(2):92-8). He described 19 children, under age 7 years, from 17 families, whose mothers consistently gave fraudulent clinical histories and fabricated signs so causing them needless harmful medical investigations, hospital admissions and treatment over periods of time ranging from a few months to 4 years. Two died. The allegations against Sally Clark, Angela Cannings and Trupti Patel were of the crime of murder of infants, not of giving fraudulent clinical histories and fabricating signs so causing them needless harmful medical investigations, hospital admissions and treatment. As far as I can see the only connection is the name Meadow. Professor Sir Roy Meadow is well known for his interest in child maltreatment, especially two forms of it: (1) fabricated or induced illness, (2) unnatural sudden infant death caused by shaking, bashing or smothering. (1) and (2) are not the same. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael D Innis, Director Medisets International Home 4575
Send response to journal:
|
Editor, Referring to John Sweeney’s report Dr Persaud claims, “at no point did the article give any coherent account of how paediatricians actually arrive at their testimony.” Perhaps the Fabricated or Induced Illness Report [1], although not necessarily coherent (logically consistent), provides clues as to how “paediatricians actually arrive at their testimony”: 1.Emerging Concerns may be raised by: a.Non-specific feelings that the account does not feel right. (A purely subjective feeling dependent on the paediatrician’s knowledge of the subject) b.Signs which do not correlate with any disease. ( This advice assumes all paediatricians know all diseases) c.Specific problems, e.g apnoea or loss of consciousness, fits, choking or collapse.(Why suspect fabrication if the child is said to have had a fit? ). d.Others in much the same vein as a, b. and c Paediatricians are advised by their College to express concern the parent is fabricating the child’s illness (MSBP renamed) but fortunately the Courts in Queensland do not recognize there is such a condition as Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy One must hope the Courts in England and elsewhere will soon follow the enlightened Queensland example. Michael Innis Reference: 1. FABRICATED OR INDUCED ILLNESS BY CARERS. Report of the Working Party of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health November 2001. Competing interests: As previously declared and a Queenslander. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Charles Pragnell, Expert Defence Witness - Child Protection and Child/Family Advocate U.K./Australasia
Send response to journal:
|
Contrary to the assertions of Raj Persaud, we as a society do care about our children and also the rights of our children to enjoy family life, free from the fear of unwarranted and unnecessary removal from their homes to be placed with strangers or in institutions, separated forever from their families and friends and the communities in which they have grown. Our society cares that children should not be subjected to child protection investigations which are based on theories which have little or no scientific integrity but are merely the conjectures, suppositions, or fanciful speculations of the medical or other professions within a deeply flawed, erratic, and dysfunctional child protection system. Our society cares that children who have been grossly abused, such as Victoria Climbie’, are offered the protection which the child protection agencies are given the duty and responsibility to provide. Our society cares that families in our country should not have to live in constant fear that they will be subjected to invasive, intrusive, and trauma-causing investigations based on mistaken, mischievous, or malicious child abuse accusations. Over 85% of child abuse allegations `Have No Substantive Basis’ but every year such allegations result in thousands of children and their families being unnecessarily subjected to such investigations and fear-inducing procedures leaving them traumatised and with severe and long-lasting emotional harm. Such fears were induced by events created over the last two decades by the failures, flaws, and draconian interventions of the child protection industry. Cleveland, the Orkneys, Nottingham, Rochdale, Shieldfields and over forty children who have died because of failures of child protection agencies to protect them, are testament to this devastation of family life and the abuse of children by a system designed to protect them. And in response the Child Protection agencies merely trot out that tired cliché of being “Damned if we do, and damned if we don’t”. Anyone and any organization can make occasional mistakes, but never in history has any individual or organization so consistently and frequently made such horrendous mistakes as the Child Protection system and with such devastating consequences for children and their families. Even those families who are experiencing difficulties in functioning can expect little or no support or assistance from State agencies in the U.K to help them work through their difficulties and not to deteriorate to the point where abuse may occur or children are neglected because parents are no longer able to cope. Families with children who are disabled can also expect little assistance from State agencies as they are denied access to services such as education, health, support in the home, or respite care – they are left to cope alone or battle every step of the way with those agencies to obtain even an assessment of their children’s needs and often, are blamed for causing their children’s disabilities which are more likely to be due to genetic, environmental, or iatrogenic causation. In the cases of Sally Clark and Angela Cannings, the evidence in their cases were examined by the Criminal Cases Review Board and the Appeal Courts and they were duly acquitted. However, in the cases of the 28,607 children who had been removed into State Care, the local authority prosecutors alone were asked to examine their own evidence within a very narrow remit set by the Minster for Children. With no independent body or legal process examining those cases, the outcome of a change to only one care plan was entirely predictable and no doubt met the strategy of damage limitation for all of the agencies involved. If the media are to be criticised in these events, it is that it has taken them over 25 years to begin to expose the fallacy of Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy and some of the harm which has been caused to children and their families by its usage. When the review of MSBP was recommended by the Griffiths Report into events at North Staffordshire Hospital, the RCPCH and the DoH (now the DfES Vulnerable Children Division) undertook no independent research into MSBP, nor took account of the immense controversy and disputes within child protection professions which surrounded the subject of MSBP, merely regurgitating the flawed commentaries of MSBP proponents and spawning yet another variant title of Fabricated and/or Induced Illness in Children. “(Medical) Experts can be confident that a child is being harmed by a parent, without knowing exactly why,” trumpets Raj Persaud. Can they indeed?. Yet Courts and the GMC have recently described the evidence given by some of the most prominent medical experts as ‘manifestly wrong and misleading” and “irresponsible, and inaccurate”. A medical expert is not required to make a judgement as to whether or not a child has been abused or may be abused but is required only to express concern that a child MAY have been harmed, based on a careful and thorough examination of the child’s injuries and that the explanations by the carers are discrepant with those injuries. It is for Courts to decide, in consideration with other evidence provided by police and other agencies, whether or not a child may or may not, have been harmed by a parent. It is this act by medical experts of leading, or misleading, Courts to certain conclusions rather than objectively and impartially assisting Courts to thoroughly and carefully consider medical evidence and issues, which is central to the current debate. Our society cares for our children and their families and above all cares that they are treated fairly and justly by child protection agencies and are not persecuted by the use of unproven and unscientific theories of child abuse, spawned from little more than personal conjectures, musing, and fanciful speculations of medical and other `Experts’. The current debate over the child protection system and the campaign of parents, politicians, and professionals for desperately needed reforms to that system, is the beginning of a much wider protest in the U.K. concerning the increased and increasingly invasive and intrusive roles adopted and prosecuted by State Health, Education, Welfare, Legal, and Administrative agencies into family life. It used to be the role of such agencies to provide advice, support, assistance, and services to meet the needs of families but this role has now been perverted into a dominating, controlling role based on a premise that the State, and its agents and employees, know best how families should function. The intended population databases being set up by the central government are yet another step down this road. Competing interests: Concern to reform the child protection system |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mark Struthers, General Practitioner Bedfordshire. mark.struthers@which.net
Send response to journal:
|
I find it disturbing that the Gresham professor for public understanding of psychiatry has so little comprehension for the psychiatric disorder that is MSbP or the paediatricians who diagnose it as well as the smothering of babies by their mums. I find alarming the lack of understanding Professor Persaud displays for the disaster that has occurred in the criminal courts “beyond reasonable doubt” and on the “balance of probabilities” in the family courts. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Penny Mellor, Advocate Home WV9 5HX
Send response to journal:
|
OK Dr Rumbold, you want the points answered I will do so, although please stop referring to us as pro MSbP, we are NOT PRO, we are not for the abuse of children, we are against false allegations of MSbP. You state we avoid the use of the phrase FII, Dr Persaud used MSbP as the diagnostic name, it ain't us that pushes the use of the term MSbP!!! We have always stated that the social services review of cases is fatally flawed and indeed, seemingly our concerns about the way in which the family courts are run hasn't fallen of deaf ears after the appointment of Sir Mark Potter as head of the family division. A judge that has had NO experience of family law, clean and fresh into the appointment, with no particular bent or for that matter favoured experts! This appointment has been met with incredulity and shock within the secret and very close knit group that makes up the family division judges, it has been met, however, with whoops from campaigners and the press, things ARE going to change like it or not. Everyone knows that the review into false allegations conducted by local authorities is farcical, it was nothing more than a platitude for politicians and media who had the integrity to be concerned. [1] It doesn't matter though, because some good investigative journalism into the claims that only one case in 28,607 was identified in the family division has already proven that statement to be false, the results of which are soon to be exposed, supported with documentary researched evidence, which has not, nor never will be shredded! Anyway it took the Attorney General's team nearly 12 months to review 300 criminal cases, yet it took the local authorities only 12 weeks to review 28,607? Hmmmm, how did they do that then? Could this have anything to do with the fact that children now have the right to sue the local authorities if their parents are falsely accused............. As to articles in the press not giving a coherent account as to how MSbP allegations came to be made against a parent, well when paediatricians have in the past agreed to be interviewed, they didn't give an account that made any sense to the journalists in the first place, in fact some of our leading journalists became concerned about this diagnosis, not as a result of the campaigning, but because they couldn't get any sort of sense from the medics, nor for that matter could any of the answers be supported with evidence, (it keeps getting shredded!) as opposed to the campaigners who maintain parent's innocence and dispute the diagnosis by providing evidence of genuine illness or adverse drug events. Our stance has never changed. Your comments about the MAMA discussion board being less vitriolic than it used to be, because of the use of those pages in court, are complete and utter rubbish that statement is a statement made without any substance and is a false allegation. You don't need a sledge hammer to crack a walnut, when the politicians, judiciary and media finally woke up to the whacky world of MSbP, we did not need to scream and rant about the injustice any longer, because finally people had noticed what has been going on, the vast majority of the MAMA board members are mothers and housewives, sensible, intelligent and certainly not hysterical and most definitely not intimidated by the prospect of court proceedings. As intelligent women we will always find a more peaceful way of moving forward our arguments, which is exactly what we are now doing. [1] http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1391537,00.html Competing interests: campaigner against false allegations of MSbP etc |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael D Innis, Director Medisets International Home 4575
Send response to journal:
|
Editor, Regarding the secrecy surrounding the Family Law Courts in England Nick Cohen writes, “But if you are ever unlucky enough to be faced with the prospect of having your child taken into care - a far worse punishment than a jail term for most parents - you will find that the state need only prove that you are guilty on the balance of probabilities.“ Children are not “taken into care” on the whim of a Social Worker, it is a Medical Practitioner, usually a Paediatrician whose “expert” evidence delivers the child into the care of the Child Protection Service. But how much trust can the public have in the "expert" when as Raj Persaud says “… experts can still be confident that a child is being harmed by a parent, without knowing exactly why.” Without knowing exactly why? Is it that feeling they get in their water that is the basis of MSBP allegations and its horrific consequences? How much longer is this Injustice to continue? When is scientific evidence going to be substituted for those "non-specific feelings" the paediatrician experiences in making a decision to advise removal of a child from its family? And when will the Family Law Courts cease to be secret and let Justice be seen to be done? Michael Innis Competing interests: As previously declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Penny Mellor, Advocate Home WV9 5HX
Send response to journal:
|
Thank you Dr Cooper, clearly Dr Persaud as a psychiatrist saw them as MSbP cases and not infanticide, in that repsect I rest my case, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing! No wonder you get false allegations. Competing interests: Campaigner against false allegations of MSbP |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Rita Dr Pal, Freelance writer and doctor UK
Send response to journal:
|
Miscarriages of justice are emotive issues for the public. In my view Dr Persaud misunderstands the great demands forced on a defendant in their case. The court system is inherently disorganised, has no scientific rigour and judges have an accepted respect for consultants. Roy Meadow is an example. The CPR rules have tightened up since the Woolf reforms and experts are now compelled to justify their views by citing research. This was not always the case. An expert could have got away with a simple statement without research verifications. If anyone has ever been into court, you will realise that the result is much like a lottery. You are dependant on your barrister who takes instruction from your solicitor. Barristers dislike talking to their clients. It is much like a Chinese whisper from you - to solicitor - barrister - judge. The interpretation may well alter at the end thus having an impact on the result of the case. Medical evidence is accepted implicitly without question because there is no one to question it. The judge has no independent expert (who does not take sides) to corroborate what is said. With due respect to judges, they know the law but they have a minimal understanding of science. The judge is therefore reliant on cross-examination. Therein lies another problem - barristers are not medical generally and often do not know or understand the key questions to ask in order to defeat an eminent Professor. The court battle is about " names". The bigger the names you are likely to afford, the better the chance of success. You also require a sprinkling of luck and the hope that the judge is not playing golf that afternoon. A significant number of these women have spent many years incarcerated in prisons. While this may be acceptable to Dr Persaud, it is not acceptable to the public. Prisons break people. That is the harsh reality. I do not feel that the media furore is disproportionate. Injustice should never be accepted or tolerated. While harassment of doctors is unacceptable, their suffering is nothing compared to the women who have been confined within the four walls of prisons, lost their family and their livelihoods. To snatch a segment of a person's life has repercussions. The description by Dr Persaud is more of the side effects of a culmination of actions. Doctors like Roy Meadow have done very little to encourage trust in the profession. Perhaps an acknowledgement that they may have been wrong may have gone someway in dampening the public outcry. As it happens, many wrongly accused women have suffered at the hands of expert witnesses and system failures within the courts. These women were not medically trained so they faced an uphill struggle to seek the answers through the maze of medical jargon. Everyone knows that it is easy to blind lay people with science with catastrophic results. There a few experts who do believe in their own arrogance and do feel that they will never be challenged. Court injustices is another method of psychological assassination. Post traumatic stress disorders and other psychiatric illnesses are the results of long periods of trauma. The public now believe that the injustice is unacceptable and quite right too. Raj Persaud is an eminent doctor who should really start to understand that psychiatry and its communication thereof comes from empathy of the human condition. While Dr Persaud's material is often well researched and skilfully presented, my own patients often ask me whether Dr Persaud has set foot in a world called " real life". Kind Regards Dr Rita Pal Competing interests: Some minimal contact with Dr Persaud - was not impressed :) |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mark Struthers, GP Bedfordshire. mark.struthers@which.net
Send response to journal:
|
In writing this article, does Raj Persaud really expect to be taken seriously? Judging by the amount of money donated to children’s charities, British society really does care for children. The real issue is not the impoverished support for the procedures and professions that are meant to protect children, but which side you believe actually does protect our young, their families and our principles of justice. Does Professor Persaud really understand the damage done? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dr John Rumbold, n/a West Midlands
Send response to journal:
|
My point re the MAMA board was that in the past it has been more vicious than now, a fact readily verified by those who have observed it over the last few years. The content of the MAMA messageboard - ACCORDING TO the MAMA messageboard - has been used by the prosecution in cases of FII. Whether or not the change in tone is due to this fact is a matter of conjecture true but most people would imagine there is a connection. Certainly in the past there has been a lot of character assassination - I note you haven't denied that. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Penny Mellor, Advocate Home WV9 5HX
Send response to journal:
|
Dr Rumbold, I am not going to get into a slanging match with you on issues of child abuse. One small point, not a word said in anger or frustration over the last 8 years on the MAMA board has not been proven as a truth and if anyone had listened way back when the original postings were put up, Sally Clark and Angela Cannings wouldn't have been charged let alone gone to prison. It is not us that are responsible for the current situation relating to child protection, it is the various governing bodies who refused to do anything with the evidence they were presented with concerning the veracity of the science behind some of the allegations made by the "experts" and it's only going to get worse until the medics understand the word ACCOUNTABILITY. Competing interests: campaigner against false allegations of MSbP |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
The notion that the people should remain polite and deferential no matter what unaccountable devastation is inflicted on their lives or on the lives of people known to them, is surely a form of psychological bullying. This is about asserting institutional rights, but where is the scientific argument and where is the humanity? With this article we have reached rock bottom. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Chapman, Consultant Paediatrician Great Yarmouth NR31 6LA
Send response to journal:
|
I think that Dr Persaud is very brave to speak out about this problem. The Rapid Responses to date show very clearly the ferocity of attack that can be expected by anyone who tries to suggest that that FII / MSBP is a real problem.
I have seen enough cases of MSBP to know that it does exist. I have seen cases where parents deliberately administer laxatives to their child to have them investigated for chronic diarrhoea. I have seen children with unexplained rashes (petichiae) on their legs caused by a ligature. I have also witnessed first hand a parent who murdered his child. I was the first doctor to see them after their child came to hospital following a cardiac arrest (later to prove fatal). Imagine my horror as I realised that the only feasible explanation for this event was deliberate smothering by a parent. Imagine also my horror to be told that this couple had had a previous child die in similar circumstances. Imagine my relief to hear that the children's father had confessed to smothering both of them. I hear that his life sentence has recently been doubled. Those among you who doubt the existence of this problem should open your eyes. You may wish to see the details of this case as reported by the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1564590.stm Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
I do not think anyone doubted that real cases of child abuse occur. People reasonably mistrust a secret and unaccountable system in which there seems to be an unwarranted disposition to disbelieve and criminalise parents, which could easily be aggravated if medical services fail. Apart from Raj Persaud's apparent ignorant elision of MSBP cases with alleged infanticides, what he fails to come to terms with is that there are no mechanisms for ascertaining whether our child protection system does a good job or not. In this respect - leaving aside any other - it does a very bad job. I cannot see why - at an intentional level at least - it was brave of Raj Persaud to speak out, but it was brave of John Sweeney to do so as a journalist in the modern BBC. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Chapman John, Consultant Paediatrician NR31 6LA
Send response to journal:
|
I posted a response yesterday. I did not include my email address deliberately. This morning I have received an email from Penny Mellor who is reporting me to the GMC and the Royal College of Paediatrics & Child Health for a perceived breach of patient confidentiality. Beware. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Robert Scott-Jupp, Consultant paediatrician Salisbury District Hospital SP2 8BJ
Send response to journal:
|
It was good to read Dr Raj Persaud's account of unbalanced media reporting in multiple infant death cases, particularly as it was written by someone other than a paediatrician. In defence of paediatricians in this debate, we need to consider motives. For most of us, the prospect of suggesting that a parent has deliberately harmed their child fills us with dread, and goes against all our training and instincts, which are to work in partnership with parents. Paediatricians in the front line therefore consider this only as a last resort, when we can find no other explanation for the child's symptoms. We have no motive for accusing parents other than to protect the children. The motives of parents and their advocates who deny abuse are obvious. Persaud quotes the outcomes of reviews ordered by the Court of Appeal of past cases following the three high-profile multiple infant death trials. This must raise the possibility that the Clark, Cannings and Patel cases were truly exceptional, in that no explanation at all can be found for these deaths, but that this is not true in most other cases where abuse is suspected. Miscarriages of justice are always tragic and damaging, and most would agree that the current legal system is sorely inadequate in dealing with these matters. However, there is irrefutable evidence that parents do harm their children, and very occasionally kill them, in ways that we would now label as FII (fabricated and induced illness). Biassed media reporting, in giving such prominence to exceptional cases, may cause professionals to deny the existence of FII where its existence is more demonstrable, thus endangering children. A final thought - when a parent is duly convicted of infanticide, surely the worst possible place for them to go is prison. Such behaviour is so aberrant that they must be mentally ill and require treatment. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Penny Mellor, Advocate Home WV9 5HX
Send response to journal:
|
Dr Chapman, the case you have highlighted was one of culpable homicide, not MSbP or FII. "Before the evidence was heard, Jenkinson finally confessed to his startled wife in the cells below the court - she never spoke to him again. Knowing he was facing a fait accompli, Jenkinson went on to claim diminished responsibility, alleging he had been sexually abused as a child and that the abuse had resulted in post-traumatic stress disorder and a mental condition known as Munchausen’s Syndrome By Proxy." "Owens has also cast doubt on the claims Jenkinson suffered from Munchausen’s Syndrome By Proxy, in which the patient inflicts harm on others to attract medical attention. He says: "Munchausen’s is not a concept without problems. Richard Asher, the man who first described it, said death was not the point of it. The purpose of it is endless medical attention." As such, he says, the deliberate killing of children does not in his opinion strictly qualify as Munchausen’s Syndrome By Proxy." [1] Your own college the RCPCH has asked the doctors abandon the term MSbP perhaps you would now read their guidelines and implement them as a practising paediatrician [2] [3] Finally unless you have obtained permission from the family to give details of the case in which you were an attending doctor, I do believe that you have breached patient confidentiality by leading the reader of your response to the article in which the child's name appears. The guidelines are very clear, you may have had consent to discuss this case with the police and in giving evidence to the court, however that consent related only to those specific tasks, it does not carry over to the BMJ's rapid response. The GMC rules are very clear: Most important is the GMC’s publication "Confidentiality" which provides: "Patients have a right to expect you will not disclose any personal information which you learn in the course of your professional duties, unless they give permission." The Duty of Confidentiality survives the patient, though mute point as to who in law could maintain an action - the dead cannot sue for defamation. In effect guidance is that you should seek consent of patient’s executor or close relative. [1]http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=506&id=828432002 [2]http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7451/1309?etoc [3]http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/publications/recent_publications/FII.pdf [4]http://www.11kbw.co.uk/html/articles/confidentiality.html Competing interests: Campaigner against false allegations of MSbP |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Penny Mellor, Advocate Home WV9 5HX
Send response to journal:
|
Dr Chapman Your email address is on the internet in the public domain, nothing sinister about that. Secondly I have not reported you to the GMC or the RCPCH, both institutions were COPIED my email to you simply as a way of highlighting how paediatricians do not follow both GMC and RCPCH guidelines and to protect myself from allegations that I was threatening you. I wrote to you personally rather than on a public forum, simply because your posting is totally misguided in terms of the case you referred to being an MSbP case. My mistake to think that any sort of intelligent dialogue could be struck up. If the BMJ would now kindly publish my public response sent yesterday, it would clear up any misunderstanding. Jo Tupper (copied into my email to Dr Chapman) is media relations, not fitness to practise, Len Tyler is the RCPCH's secretary, whom I have met to discuss misconceptions about MSbP/FII and would have known that I was just drawing the RCPCH's attention to very thing I have said is a problem. These parties were informed not by way of a complaint, I do know how to make a complaint and to whom I would need to address it, I was merely highlighting how some paediatricians continue to think that child murders are actually MSbP. If I had have formally complained about you, you would have known nothing until my complaint had been screened and passed to you for your response. Your allegations against me in the BMJ show just how much you all believe in your own publicity. It really does seem that the nature of the beast is that some doctors totally misconstrue a situation, is it possible that it's this type of attitude that leads to false allegations in the first place? This is the email I sent with Dr Chapman's full email address removed. I hope now the BMJ have the integrity to ensure that this response is posted so that members of the medical profession are clear that no complaint has been intitiated and that Dr Chapman is wrong. Subject: Rapid Response to Persaud Date: 20/01/2005 10:14:25 GMT Standard Time From: DARETOCARE1 Subject: Rapid Response to Persaud Date: 20/01/2005 10:14:25 GMT Standard Time From: DARETOCARE1 Reply To: To: john.chapman CC: sdavies@bmj.com, len.tyler@rcpch.ac.uk, JTupper@gmc-uk.org BCC: Sent on: Sent from the Internet (Details) Internet Address Card Attached Dear Dr Chapman In your rapid response on the BMJ http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters?lookup=by_date&days=1 you state that infanticide cases are MSbP/FII, this is in contradiction to the RCPCH's FII guidelines, which you may want to read. I am also concerned that as the attending paediatrician you have given details of your patient the child in the case and linked it to a BBC report which identifies the child, you have breached patient confidentiality. Penny Mellor Competing interests: Campaigner against false allegations of MSbP |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mark Struthers, GP Bedfordshire. mark.struthers@which.net
Send response to journal:
|
As a paediatrician, Dr Scott-Jupp has scored a first. As far as I can recall he is the first on these pages to suggest that sending to prison a mother who smothers her own infant might not be a wholly appropriate punishment. I remember well that Simon Jenkins a columnist for ‘The Times’ forcefully raised this issue in the aftermath of Angela Canning’s release from prison. In his shallow and unbalanced account of the media reporting of ‘multiple infant death cases’, Professor Raj Persaud made no mention of how a humane and civilised society might better deal with the tragedy of the mother who kills her own. It is notable that Raj Persaud made no attempt at apology for the damage done to society by faulty medical evidence and wrongful conviction in these tragic trials. Sadly too, the cases of Sally Clark, Angela Cannings and Trupti Patel were not exceptional. And a final thought - neither Sally Clark nor Angela Cannings were considered mentally ill before they were convicted of infanticide and sent to prison for life. Does Professor Raj Persaud, the psychiatrist, wonder how they’re faring are now? He didn’t say. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
"The motives of parents and their advocates who deny abuse are obvious". Robert Scott-Jupp's statement is highly prejudicial, not least for not being qualified by which examples of abuse, alleged or real, or which parents and advocates are indicated. I think you really have to pose the question why some professionals want to maintain the present secret, self- referential and unaccountable system, rather than one which wins public trust because it is open. How can the present system detect its own errors? What is the basis of trust? In fairness - speaking for myself - I do trust most doctors, but the system is flawed and opaque. That ultimately is what it is about. Raj Persaud's intervention is a bit like old Mr Grace being wheeled on in the sit-com: "Are you being Served?" and announcing: "You've all done very well!" and then being wheeled off again. It is simply irrelevant to the issue of justice, due process and proper institutional accountability. We live in an institutionally regressive age: no more checks and balances. In modern Britain the term "pluralism" is an obscure usage, and it is terrifying. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
David & Davina Hollisey-Mclean, Medical Technical Officer / Housewife SA4 3DT
Send response to journal:
|
Dr Robert Scott-Jupp says "The motives of parents and their advocates who deny abuse are obvious." Maybe Dr Scott-Jupp would care to explain exactly what he thinks is obvious about the motives of parents who deny abuse. We get the impression that he doesn't think that the motive may be that they are innocent. He seems to fall into the catergory of Paediatricians who presume guilt, after all medicine does have all the answers doesn't it? NOT! Competing interests: Wrongly accused parents |
|||