Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
DOCTORS IN COURT
- Peter Rudd (17 August 2008)
-
Beyond a reasonable doubt
- Penny Mellor (18 August 2008)
-
Expert Evidence
- Michael Innis (4 September 2008)
-
Doctors in Court
- C Frank Lockyer (8 September 2008)
|
|
|||
|
Peter Rudd, Consultant Paediatrician Royal United Hospital Bath
Send response to journal:
|
I would have expected a more critical and accurate report of the Clark appeal from your legal correspondent. It is true that important microbiological results were withheld at the original trial; however she goes onto say that tissue from one of the babies showed widespread Staphylococcus infection. In reality S.aureus was isolated from post mortem specimens but there was no convincing evidence inflammatory response in the baby . As yet there is nothing in the world literature on Cot Deaths that demonstrates S. aureus is the cause; If the court really believed that the baby died from infection the evidence presented was as one sided as that that presented by Roy Meadows. Undoubtedly justice was served at the appeal stage but it is important that the BMJ presents a truthful account of the medical details surrounding the appeal. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Penny Mellor, Campaigner medico/legal reseacrher Home WV9 5HX
Send response to journal:
|
There seems to be some confusion as to how the law in this country works - Prof Meadow gave a figure, a figure that was not caveated with the phrase "but only if my theory regarding more than one SID is correct". It was given as a fact. The Staph A theory, was presented as such, a potential cause of death, which means in terms of the criminal division, there was a doubt, one that could not be disproven because further tests could not be carried out. Current research would now support that the presence of Staph A may have a causal relationship with SID. [1] Beyond a reasonable doubt is the central plank of our criminal courts, there is no room for kite flying, conjecture, theory or speculation when deciding on a charge as serious as the murder of a child. As the causes of SID continue to baffle the entire world of medicine, then the premise of beyond a reasonable doubt becomes even more important. [1]http://www.sids.org.uk/sebire-infection.html Competing interests: I worked with Sally Clark's defence team |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael Innis, Medicolegal Consultant Home
Send response to journal:
|
Editor, Clare Dyer, in reporting Dr Colin Patterson’s “falling foul” of the GMC, says, “he repeatedly gave this "expert" evidence through the 1990s in Britain and the US despite mounting criticism from judges, until the then president of the family division, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, finally reported him to the GMC.” The extent to which the Judiciary in the UK (and for that matter in America and Australia) has been hoodwinked by the proponents of Non- accidental Injury (NAI) is astounding. It means that no parent of an infant with a “fracture” will ever get a fair trial in these countries. (1) Dr Colin Patterson’s “pet theory”, to which Dame Elizabeth Butler- Slosh objected is a scientifically established fact which has yet to penetrate the hallowed Halls of Academia. Hopefully it won’t be long before the Royal Colleges will be proclaiming that bruises and fractures in a child may have a nutritional basis and both Vitamin C and K deficiencies, temporary or otherwise, should be considered before declaring “Trauma Level 1 – Shaken Baby Syndrome.” A short while ago I received the following message. "My brother's second appeal to get it moved to the xxxxxxx Supreme Court was denied so now we are on our next phase of Post Conviction Relief with more public defenders so my brother is not at all optimistic and unfortunately is becoming more and more suicidal." The child in the case, claimed by doctors to have been murdered, had a markedly elevated Prothrombin time, indicating Vitamin K Deficiency Disease(2). One can only hope the misdiagnosis is discovered before an innocent man commits suicide. Michael Innis . References 1.Innis MD GMC Ruling Unjust Rapid Response BMJ 16th June 2004. 2.Innis MD Vitamin K Deficiency Disease. Jour Orthomol Med; 2008:23: 15-23 Competing interests: I have given evidence in Courts in Australia, England and the USA and been paid for my services. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
C Frank Lockyer, Looking for peace Retired
Send response to journal:
|
I cannot access Clare Dyer's article which I guess was addressing the general principle which is fair enough. But is it not time now that the profession left Sally (and indeed the family)in peace? Here we have yet another paediatrician popping up as though he knows what he is talking about when obviously he does not. The whole point of the appeal was that staph A organisms in the CSF had associated polymorphs showing reaction in life and eleven paediatricians were on hand to support that. I have no doubt that there are another eleven somewhere who will say the opposite but it is significant is it not that even the lone paediatrician who gave evidence expressing doubt has since been associated with research which supports the link with Sudden Infant Deaths. Come to think of it that is what the recent cases have been all about - doctors offering theory as fact when not in possession of the full facts. Will they never learn? C Frank Lockyer Competing interests: Sally Clark's father |
|||