Rapid Responses to:

EDITOR'S CHOICE: Jane Smith In praise of trade offs BMJ 2005; 330: 0-g [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

The heavy hand of suspicion

John Stone   (3 May 2005)

Re: The heavy hand of suspicion

Michael D Innis   (4 May 2005)

The heavy hand of suspicion 3 May 2005
John Stone, none London N22 Send response to journal: Re: The heavy hand of suspicion	Jane Smith writes: "Or we could look to lawyers. The House of Lords has just ruled that parents who are wrongly accused of harming their children cannot sue doctors or social workers who made or investigated the allegations, even if they behave negligently (p 988). The reasoning is that the professionals' duty is to the child, and in cases of child abuse the child's interest is diametrically opposed to that of the parents. In other words, society finds it more intolerable that a child should be abused than that a parent should be wrongly accused. Clinicians working in child protection will welcome this ruling, but everyone should admire it for not fudging a hard choice." Well, I do not admire this ruling. The only people who are protected are the professionals: the child who gets caught up in a case of false accusation is not having his/her rights protected, and will almost certainly be subjected to trauma that will leave them marked for life. Get it wrong and you get it wrong for everybody. "In other words, society finds it more intolerable that a child should be abused than that a parent should be wrongly accused" is a false alternative, unfounded in logic or normal human experience. And where, incidentally, does "society" come into it? All this stuff is conducted in secret, and beyond public scrutiny or knowledge. To further enhance the rights of the professional against those of the citizen, when everything seems heavily weighted against the latter in the first place is a parody of justice. Legal action is not necessarily the best or wisest recourse to the citizen who has been the victim of such accusations, but why should they have their rights arbitrarily curtailed, and why should there be no potential sanction of this kind? Competing interests: None declared
Re: The heavy hand of suspicion 4 May 2005
Michael D Innis, Director Medisets International Home 4575 Send response to journal: Re: Re: The heavy hand of suspicion	Editor, The heavy hand of suspicion was bad enough when Sally Clark, Angela Canning and others were falsely accused. The situation can only to be made worse since the House of Lords ruled that parents who are wrongly accused of harming their children cannot sue doctors or social workers who made or investigated the allegations, even if they behave negligently. It is absurd and cruel to remove a child from its parents because the Paediatrician is concerned by “non-specific feelings that the account does not feel right”[1], especially when those “non-specific feelings” are not supported by a thorough investigation of all possiblities. I can produce a dozen such cases if the learned Lords would like to see them. With this ruling the Lords will encourage a proliferation of those “non-specific feelings” and more Sally Clarks and Angela Cannings. Michael D Innis MBBS; DTM&H; FRCPA; FRCPath Reference 1. Report of the Working Party of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. November 2001 page 37 Competing interests: As previously declared